However, Judgment Creditor’s Acceptance Of Payoff Check Cut Off Further Postjudgment Fees, Even Though Other Judgment Creditors Were Not Paid Off.
Roe v. Ma, Case No. A150320 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 31, 2019) (unpublished) is a situation where a judgment debtor having four judgment creditors under a prior integrated judgment decided to satisfy one judgment creditor with the hopes to get rid of a judgment lien on the debtor’s real estate. She did a full cashier’s check payoff to the one creditor, requesting a full acknowledgment of satisfaction. The creditor refused, only recording a partial satisfaction, and the trial judge refused to compel a broader satisfaction acknowledgment. Creditor then moved to recoup judgment enforcement fees, with the trial judge awarding him a little over half and no costs. Debtor appealed both orders, and creditor cross-appealed from the fee reduction.
The 1/3 DCA affirmed the denial of the motion to compel satisfaction, but it reversed the fee award and dismissed the cross-appeal.
The denial of the motion to compel acknowledgment of satisfaction was correct because only a partial satisfaction was required; otherwise, a full satisfaction would have impacted the rights of the unpaid, other judgment creditors because the broader satisfaction recording would have extinguished the entire judgment lien which also benefited the other creditors. However, the fee award went away because creditor’s acceptance of the payoff prevented any further postjudgment fee collection efforts, in line with the reasoning of Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisition, Inc., 233 Cal.App.4th 882 (2015) [discussed in our January 28, 2015 post]. The appellate court also rejected the contention that the unpaid status of the other judgment creditors meant that judgment debtor was still subject to the one judgment creditor’s post-satisfaction fee request. The reversal of the fee award further mooted the cross-appeal, which was dismissed.
Comments