233 Cal. App. 4th 882
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Gray1 CPB, LLC obtained a judgment against SCC Acquisitions and Elieff for over $9.1 million plus interest.
- Defendants paid the judgment (including awarded attorney fees) by cashier’s check and asserted the judgment was fully satisfied.
- Gray1 incurred over $3 million in postjudgment costs and attorney fees while attempting to enforce the judgment.
- Gray1 filed a motion for postjudgment costs after defendants tendered the cashier’s check; the trial court denied as untimely.
- The Supreme Court in Conservatorship of McQueen held McQueen’s appellate-attorney-fee fees are not subject to § 685.080 timing, but enforcement costs incurred in obtaining enforcement are, depending on timing.
- The court concluded Gray1’s motion was untimely because the judgment was satisfied when Gray1 accepted the cashier’s check and filing a motion afterward violated §§ 685.070, 685.080; and 724.010/724.030 to the extent applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postjudgment costs motion | Gray1 argues it sought costs within two years of incurrence | Defendants argue motion untimely since the judgment was fully satisfied and motion filed after payment | Untimely; motion filed after full satisfaction |
| When is a judgment paid by cashier's check considered satisfied | Payment by check is not satisfied until honored; McQueen controls | Acceptance of cashier's check equates to payment; satisfaction occurs when tendered | Judgment satisfied when Gray1 accepted cashier's check; funds honored later are immaterial for satisfaction date |
| Effect of enforcing costs and fees under McQueen and §685.080 | Fees incurred to enforce judgment may be recoverable | Fees must be sought timely before satisfaction; not tolled | McQueen governs timing; enforcement costs must be timely; no equitable tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of McQueen, 59 Cal.4th 602 (Cal. 2014) (timing of postjudgment costs and satisfaction under Enforcement of Judgments Law)
- Long v. Cuttle Construction Co., 60 Cal.App.4th 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (payment by noncash instruments and timing under Uniform Commercial Code)
- Heimstadt v. Tapered Parts, Inc., 155 Cal.App.2d 711 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957) (unadjudicated debt and predecessor view on payment of attorney fees)
- Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee, 185 Cal.App.4th 125 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (timeliness of motions for enforcement costs)
- In re Greg F., 55 Cal.4th 393 (Cal. 2012) (statutory interpretation around satisfaction of judgments and costs)
- Cunningham v. Magidow, 219 Cal.App.4th 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard in section 724.050 proceedings)
- George S. Nolte Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. v. Magliocco, 93 Cal.App.3d 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (substantial evidence review in appellate decisions)