In Longview International, Inc. v. Stirling the Court of Appeal for the Sixth District concludes that the recording of an abstract of judgment is a procedural act that is retroactively validated once a suspended corporation’s powers are reinstated.
An abstract of judgment recorded when a corporation is suspended for failure to pay franchise taxes is not void. At the time of recording, even though a corporation is suspended, the abstract of judgment is capable of being enforced upon the corporation obtaining a revival of its corporate powers. Revival retroactively validates the lien and makes the abstract enforceable.
The fact that revival occurred after the transfer of property is of no merit. A recorded abstract that complies with all statutory requirements is not void and provides notice to the transferee that the judgment lien may be enforced upon revival of the corporation’s powers.
There is no federal or state constitutional right to maintain the privacy of tax returns. However, California courts have interpreted state taxation statutes as creating a statutory privilege against the disclosure of tax returns. The purpose is to encourage voluntary filing of tax reporting of income and thus to facilitate tax collection.
The privilege is not absolute. It will not be upheld in three situations: when (1) the circumstances indicate an intentional waiver of the privilege; (2) the gravamen of the lawsuit is inconsistent with the privilege; or (3) a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is involved. This last exception is narrow and applies only “when warranted by a legislatively declared public policy.” Continue reading
If a party dies between the time the court orally grants a judgment of dissolution and the time the court enters a written judgment — does the court lose jurisdiction to enter judgment nunc pro tunc? No, writes the court in Marriage of Martin. Continue reading
Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 authorizes the court to award a judgment creditor attorney fees incurred in enforcing a judgment if the underlying judgment included an award of fees as costs. Continue reading
It is fundamental that a judgment of a sister state must be given full faith and credit if that sister state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and all interested parties were given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. To fulfill this mandate in California a sister state or foreign money judgment may be registered and enforced pursuant to the Sister State and Foreign Money-Judgment Act (SSFMJA) codified at Code of Civil Procedure sections 1710.10-1710.65. Continue reading
If you are fortunate to have obtained a judgment from a California court, you may wonder how interest on the principal amount of the judgment and interest on prejudgment and postjudgment costs are calculated. Interest on the principal amount of judgment is calculated at the rate of 10 percent per annum. It is calculated on the principal amount of the judgment from the date of entry. Continue reading
The successful prosecution of a lawsuit, where only money is involved, is frequently less than one-half the battle. The successful plaintiff may also have to defend an appeal. If plaintiff prevails on appeal, plaintiff still must still collect. If the defendant is insolvent, collection may be impossible.
If the defendant is licensed by the California Department of Real Estate, there is hope for at least partial recovery on the judgment from the Consumer Recovery Account. If the judgment contains specific findings and is the result of intentional fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, or conversion of trust funds in a transaction requiring a real estate license – plaintiff may be able to look to the recovery fund for satisfaction up to $50,000 per transaction. Continue reading
Over the years I have handled my fair share of quiet title cases. They are unique in several respects. The recent case of Nickell v. Matlock, Second Appellate District, highlights one unique aspect: default judgments are not allowed. Pursuant to statutes specific to quiet title actions, the court must, in all cases, require evidence of plaintiff’s title and must hear evidence that is offered as to the claims of any other defendants.
What about the circumstance when a defendant’s pleading has been struck and his default entered as a sanction? Is that defendant allowed to present evidence of title at the evidentiary hearing? Continue reading