Torjesen v. Mansdorf
1 Cal. App. 5th 111
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Torjesen obtained a $2 million judgment against Harry Mansdorf (individually and as trustee) and later obtained a writ of execution; the Ventura County Sheriff levied on Malibu property held by Mansdorf as trustee after Mansdorf died.
- Two weeks after the levy notice, Jaime Gonzalez filed a third-party claim asserting the property had been transferred to him and Mansdorf as joint tenants in 2008 and thus passed to Gonzalez by right of survivorship on Mansdorf’s death.
- Torjesen filed a petition under the Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL) to invalidate Gonzalez’s third-party claim; Gonzalez’s counsel sought an extension, then withdrew, and Gonzalez initially sought dismissal of his claim which the court entered.
- Torjesen successfully sought reconsideration; the trial court retracted the dismissal and granted Torjesen’s petition invalidating Gonzalez’s third-party claim on April 15, 2013. Gonzalez did not appeal that order.
- In 2015 Gonzalez moved to vacate the April 2013 order, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure § 686.020 and related Probate Code provisions because the judgment debtor had died before the execution lien was perfected; the trial court denied the motion and Gonzalez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s April 15, 2013 order invalidating Gonzalez’s third-party claim was void for lack of jurisdiction because the judgment debtor died before the levy was perfected | Torjesen argued the court could entertain and decide the EJL petition to invalidate the third-party claim | Gonzalez argued the EJL couldn’t be used after the debtor’s death and the proceeding was governed exclusively by Probate Code, so the order was void | Court held the superior court had fundamental jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter; proceeding under the EJL was error in excess of jurisdiction (voidable), not a fundamental lack of jurisdiction (void) |
| Whether Gonzalez could collaterally attack the final April 15, 2013 order two years later | Torjesen implicitly argued the order was final and not subject to collateral attack after appeal period | Gonzalez contended the order was void and therefore open to collateral attack at any time | Court held the order was voidable, not void; because Gonzalez did not timely appeal, the order was final and collateral attack was barred |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (2004) (distinguishes fundamental lack of jurisdiction rendering a judgment void from errors in excess of jurisdiction rendering a judgment voidable)
- Casa Eva I Homeowners Assn. v. Ani Construction & Tile, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 771 (2005) (construing judgment-lien statutes and procedural limits; cited for principles about strict construction of statutory schemes)
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. City etc. of S.F., 25 Cal.2d 37 (1944) (describing limits on collateral attack of judgments not void on their face)
- Thompson v. Cook, 20 Cal.2d 564 (1942) (timing limits on setting aside judgments absent voidness)
- Estate of Radovich, 48 Cal.2d 116 (1957) (probate court’s in rem jurisdiction over estate property)
- Pangborn Plumbing Corp. v. Carruthers & Skiffington, 97 Cal.App.4th 1039 (2002) (statutory procedures and limits governing court authority)
- Epstein v. Abrams, 57 Cal.App.4th 1159 (1997) (statutory limitation on court action may render action in excess of jurisdiction)