Renda v. Nevarez
223 Cal. App. 4th 1231
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Renda obtained an $817,429.55 judgment against Nevarez in a prior action for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence; Nevarez did not pay.
- Renda learned Nevarez transferred assets to sham entities to avoid collection, leading to the UFTA action against Nevarez and others.
- Jury found Nevarez made $450,000 in transfers with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Renda and found Renda liable on aiding/abetting and conspiracy theories.
- Trial court voided the $450,000 transfers and held defaulting transferees jointly and severally liable for that amount, but denied a personal money judgment against Nevarez.
- Renda sought a personal money judgment against Nevarez under the UFTA for the $450,000, arguing § 3439.08(b)(1) makes Nevarez a recoverable target.
- Court declined, ruling that awarding a personal money judgment against Nevarez would duplicate the underlying damages already recovered in the prior action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UFTA permits a money judgment against the transfer maker. | Renda argues Nevarez qualifies under § 3439.08(b)(1) as the person for whose benefit the transfer was made. | Nevarez contends the statute authorizes voidance and relief but not a personal money judgment against the transfer maker when double recovery would occur. | No personal money judgment against Nevarez under UFTA; discretion to deny relief affirmed. |
| Whether a double-recovery rule bars a separate money judgment against Nevarez. | Renda seeks extra money damages beyond the underlying judgment. | Defendants argue the UFTA permits separate monetary relief for the transferred amount. | Double-recovery rule bars a second judgment against Nevarez for the same harm. |
| Whether discretionary relief under the UFTA allows denial of a money judgment even if technically permissible. | Under § 3439.08(b)(1), Renda should recover a money judgment against Nevarez. | Court may exercise discretion under § 3439.10 to deny a money judgment on equity grounds. | Court properly exercised discretion; denied money judgment to avoid duplicative recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejia v. Reed, 31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003) (UFTA remedial statute; protects unsecured creditors)
- Miller v. Kaiser, 433 P.2d 772 (Colo. 1967) (equitable remedy bars money damages against transferor)
- Wright v. Salzberger, 121 Cal.App.3d 639 (Cal.App.3d 1981) (equitable remedy limits against debtor to avoid double recovery)
- Tavaglione v. Billings, 4 Cal.4th 1150 (Cal. 1993) (single recovery rule; no double recovery for the same injury)
- Filip v. Bucurenciu, 129 Cal.App.4th 825 (Cal. App. 2005) (transfers can be deemed fraudulent; relief may include voidance)
- Qwest Communications Corp. v. Weisz, 278 F.Supp.2d 1188 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (discusses interpretation of 'person for whose benefit the transfer was made')