52 Cal.App.5th 331
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1995 a single judgment was entered in favor of 17 plaintiffs against Robert and Richard Highsmith for approximately $195,678.88 based on nine promissory notes.
- In 2005 attorney David Wexler renewed that judgment on Judicial Council form EJ-190; Wexler died in 2008.
- In October 2015 plaintiff John Bisordi (one of the 17) filed the EJ-190 renewal himself, using the same attachments and increasing the amount for interest and fees; he did not serve notice of renewal on defendants at that time.
- By assignments in 2016–2018 most original creditors assigned their interests to appellant WVJP 2017-1, LP, which sought enforcement and obtained a writ; defendants moved to quash and later to vacate the 2015 renewal.
- Defendants argued the 2015 filing was void to the extent Bisordi acted for the other creditors because it was the unauthorized practice of law, and also raised statutory-compliance/service defects; the trial court granted the motion and vacated the renewal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Bisordi’s preparation and filing of the Judicial Council renewal form was a clerical/ministerial act, not the unauthorized practice of law, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WVJP/Bisordi) | Defendant's Argument (Highsmith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non‑attorney (Bisordi) who filled out and filed EJ‑190 on behalf of all creditors engaged in the unauthorized practice of law | Filing the Judicial Council renewal form is a ministerial/clerical act; Bisordi followed the prior attorney’s form and acted for joint creditors | Filing on behalf of other creditors constituted practicing law without a license and is void | Court: No unauthorized practice — filling the standard renewal form was clerical/scrivener work, not legal practice; reversal of vacatur |
| Whether failure to serve notice of the 2015 renewal invalidates the renewal or only prevents enforcement | Notice is not required to make the renewal effective; service is required only to commence enforcement | Lack of service rendered renewal invalid and justify vacatur/enjoin enforcement | Court: Service is not required for validity; it only precludes enforcement until served (Goldman) |
| Whether the renewal failed to comply with statute by not showing individual creditors’ separate amounts under § 683.150(c) | If an issue, court could limit renewal to Bisordi’s share or otherwise remedy amount | Renewal invalid as to Bisordi’s portion for statutory noncompliance | Court: Appellate decision rests on unauthorized‑practice issue; the court agreed with WVJP on that point and did not need to resolve the § 683.150(c) allocation/joint‑venture arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldman v. Simpson, 160 Cal.App.4th 255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (statutory renewal is ministerial; notice required only before enforcement)
- Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones, 138 Cal.App.4th 1481 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (entry of renewal is a ministerial clerk act)
- Fidelity Creditor Serv. v. Browne, 89 Cal.App.4th 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (debtor bears burden to vacate renewal under § 683.170)
- Beneficial Financial v. Durkee, 206 Cal.App.3d 912 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (renewal entry is ministerial)
- People v. Landlords Professional Services, 215 Cal.App.3d 1599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (distinguishes clerical form‑filling from unauthorized practice requiring legal advice)
- Tom Thumb Glove Co. v. Han, 78 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (non‑attorney filing an application under a statutory registration scheme did not constitute unauthorized practice when clerk’s entry is ministerial)
- Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani, 54 Cal.App.4th 1361 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (renewal may require judicial intervention; suspended corporation could not renew)
- Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 119 (Cal. 1998) (purpose of unauthorized‑practice prohibition is protecting public by ensuring competence)