Starcevic v. Pentech Financial Services, Inc.
66 Cal.App.5th 365
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Partition action over four San Diego parcels; multiple judgment creditors (Pentech and Roski among them).
- Pentech obtained a money judgment March 5, 2008 (abstract recorded Apr. 4, 2008) and did not renew; its 10-year enforcement period expired March 5, 2018.
- Roski obtained a judgment May 2009 (abstract recorded Aug. 2009) and timely renewed his judgment and lien.
- At the first phase (Nov. 2015) parties stipulated liens would be prioritized by date of recording; court ruled Pentech had priority. In Mar. 2017 the court adopted a stipulated interlocutory judgment continuing prioritization by recording date and directing sale; sale proceeds were placed in escrow pending further court order.
- Parcels sold between Oct. 2017 and Sept. 2019; Tran’s (seller’s) 20% share totaled $505,957.45 and remained in court-controlled escrow.
- At the second-phase resolution, the trial court held Pentech’s lien was extinguished by failure to renew and awarded priority and distribution rights to Roski; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Pentech's Argument | Roski's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nov. 2015 priority determination was final and insulated Pentech from lien expiration | The earlier priority ruling (and the stipulated interlocutory judgment) finally fixed priority and rendered renewal unnecessary | The partition proceedings do not excuse statutory renewal; an expired judgment lien is extinguished by operation of law | Court: No — statutory expiration extinguished Pentech’s lien; partition statute does not excuse renewal requirements |
| Whether section 872.040 (partition law) excuses compliance with the Enforcement of Judgments Law | Partition finality makes renewal unnecessary; parties’ stipulation controlled priority | Section 872.040 expressly requires compliance with any applicable laws governing division/sale/transfer, including judgment-enforcement statutes | Court: Section 872.040 does not excuse renewal; judgment lien expired without renewal |
| Entitlement to proceeds from B Street sale that closed before Pentech’s judgment expired | Pentech: closed escrow before expiration, so it should receive its share of that sale’s proceeds | Roski: proceeds were placed in escrow by court order and distributions were subject to later court determination; expired judgment bars collection | Court: No entitlement — proceeds were held in court escrow and Pentech’s expired judgment bars collection |
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to consider equitable theories first raised in objections to proposed statement of decision | Pentech: trial court should have considered constructive/equitable lien, novation, estoppel, etc. | Roski: arguments were raised too late and not proper objections to a statement of decision | Court: Waived or improper — objections raised new issues not litigated; trial court properly declined to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (presumption that trial court rulings are correct on appeal)
- Pista v. Resetar, 205 Cal. 197 (interlocutory partition decree is conclusive as to matters determined)
- Raisin Inv. Co. v. Magginetti, 109 Cal.App.2d 163 (court cannot amend interlocutory judgment after it becomes final as to decided issues)
- Alonso Inv. Corp. v. Doff, 17 Cal.3d 539 (describing prior discretionary post-10-year enforcement practice superseded by renewal scheme)
- Beneficial Financial, Inc. v. Durkee, 206 Cal.App.3d 912 (judgment lien extinguished when judgment not renewed)
- Klein v. United States of America, 50 Cal.4th 68 (statutory interpretation principles)