Although Judgment Interest Ceased, Judgment Creditor Was Entitled To Seek Fees/Costs To Obtain Satisfaction—Any Other Result Would Be Mischievous!
Wertheim, LLC v. Currency Corporation, Case No. B277633 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 6, 2019) (published) was a situation where judgment creditor Wertheim obtained a bonded judgment in its favor but encountered a judgment debtor which continuously fought Wertheim’s efforts to obtain payment of the judgment from an appeal bond issuer’s deposit with the court. However, judgment debtor Currency was able to convince a lower court that Wertheim’s motion for postjudgment enforcement fees was untimely.
The 2/1 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Chaney, reversed and remanded for a merits determination on Wertheim’s motion for fees and costs. That conclusion was dictated by the fact that the appeal bond issuer’s bond deposit was not a judgment “satisfaction” under CCP § 685.030(d) and other complimentary postjudgment enforcement statutory provisions because Wertheim could never get access to the disputed funds so the judgment could be paid given Currency’s actions in blocking access to the interpled funds. Although judgment interest did cease, the deposit did not thwart Wertheim’s efforts to obtain postjudgment fees and costs given that Currency fought Wertheim’s ability to obtain access to the interpled funds; otherwise, unintended mischievous results would occur.
BLOG COMMENT—Co-contributor Mike was one of the appellate counsel on the case, and gives great congratulations to lead appellate counsel Matthew D. Kanin as well as to co-counsel Jay Rahimi. We also congratulate David Pullman, principal of Wertheim and creator of Pullman Bonds.
Comments