Judgment Enforcement: Judgment Creditor Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees For Pursuing A Wage Garnishment Order Against Ex-Husband For A Community Debt Judgment Against A Wife

No Conspiracy Between A Judgment Debtor And Relevant Third Party Is Required.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 authorizes a trial court to award reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment to the judgment creditor, if (1) the fees were incurred to “enforce” a judgment, and (2) the underlying judgment included an award of fees pursuant to specific provisions of the CCP (such as provisions which are allowed by contract, statute, or law, most frequently Civil Code section 1717). 

            In Direct Capital Corp. v. Brooks, Case No. C095817 (3d Dist. Feb. 27, 2023) (unpublished), DCC leased computer equipment to wife Mary Brooks, who was married to Grant Brooks at the time.  DCC obtained a judgment against Mary while the marriage was intact, then attempted to garnish Grant’s wages on the theory the debt was a community obligation.  Both the trial and appellate courts agreed in several proceedings and two prior appeals.  DCC then sought over $67,000 in attorney’s fees against Grant, fees for the wage garnishment efforts and in defending the two appeals.  The trial judge awarded some fees to the DCC for the garnishment efforts, but no fees for defending the appeals.  Grant appealed.

            His principal argument was that, under Cardinale v. Miller, 222 Cal.App.4^th 1020 (2014), no section 685.040 fees were recoverable because there was no conspiracy between the judgment debtor and relevant third party.  The Third District recognized that there was a conspiracy in Cardinale, but rejected the argument that a conspiracy is a prerequisite to imposition of section 685.040 fees against a third party such as Grant.  DCC satisfied the two parts of the 685.040 test, such that this alone sufficed—with Grant erroneously conflating Cardinale’s application of the 685.040 two-part test with the test itself.