What is a Judgment Lien?

Useful Rulings on Judgment Lien

Recent Rulings on Judgment Lien

ANDRANIK AVEDYAN VS ALIS AVEDYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Moving defendant Garnick Kashishian seeks to establish that plaintiff’s causes of action are without merit, as defendant Kashishian has a security interest in the subject property, which is senior to Alis Avedyan’s judgment lien.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

YONG DENG, ET AL. VS FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BANK, ET AL.

., express information — that Defendants had a judgment lien on the Property based on knowledge that Defendants had a judgment against Mauriss because a judgment against Mauriss is plainly not equivalent to a judgment lien on the Property owned by Mauriss. To create a judgment lien on real property, the judgment creditor must take the additional step of recording an abstract of the judgment. (CCP § 697.060(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

STARS AND BARS, LLC V. WESTPORT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC

Moving defendants have not addressed the Tech-Bilt factors at all; they merely object to the terms in the settlement providing that non-party OC West be a payee on the settlement check, claiming that it cannot enforce its judgment lien against plaintiff and that the judgment lien of defendant Crown Valley has priority. Because defendants have not addressed the good faith of the settlement itself, they have not met their burden on the issue.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

RICHARD GREENBAUER VS. DENNIS L GRAHAM

The Court is not persuaded on this record that the Court should declare the judgment lien(s) invalid. See Oldham v. California Capital Fund, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal. App. 4th 421, 430. Both parties' requests for sanctions are denied. The Court finds that plaintiffs' request does not comply with the procedural requirements of CCP § 128.5. In addition, the Court is not persuaded on this current record that sanctions should be imposed against any party or attorney.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YOUNG JIN KIM VS KASLAX SERVICE, INC., ET AL.

On June 4, 2019, judgment creditor A-Ju Tours, Inc. filed a notice of judgment lien against judgment debtors Henry M. Lee, Esq. and Henry M. Law Corporation. On July 19, 2019, the Court found that the cases 19STCV08546 and 19STCV11270 are related and designated 19STCV08546 as the lead case. On February 7, 2020, Defendants Hyo Suk Lee, Kaslax Service, Inc., and All Round Express, Inc. filed the instant unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings, as to the conversion claim in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HEE KWAN EUN VS JAE KEUN CHUNG, ET AL.

On June 4, 2019, judgment creditor A-Ju Tours, Inc. filed a notice of judgment lien against judgment debtors Henry M. Lee, Esq. and Henry M. Law Corporation. On July 2, 2019, Defendants Hyo Suk Lee, Kaslax Service, Inc., and All Round Express, Inc. filed a notice of related case, case number 19STCV11270. On July 19, 2019, the Court found that the cases 19STCV08546 and 19STCV11270 are related and designated 19STCV08546 as the lead case.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CREATIVE RECOVERY CONCEPTS INC VS LEROY JAMES COLLINS, III, ET AL.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff, through this lawsuit, is attempting to assert a judgment lien that would allow Plaintiff to recover more by way of the assertion of the lien than the value of the property transferred. Defendants assert that there is no factual or legal basis that permits Plaintiff to recover more by way of the assertion of lien than the value of the property transferred. On these bases, Defendants demur to the entire FAC, and also move to strike Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

INSTANT FINANCING, INC. VS WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC

Respondent Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC moves to amend the judgment offsetting a statutory judgment lien. TENTATIVE RULING: Respondent Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC’s motion to amend judgment offsetting statutory judgment lien (CCP § 708.470) is GRANTED. Respondent’s lien in the amount of $322,066.77 is offset against the amount of the judgment in favor of Petitioner in this case, $314,583.53.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

NORTON VS HASKINS

Probate Code section 9391 provides: "Except as provided in Section 10361, the holder of a mortgage or other lien on property in the decedent's estate, including, but not limited to, a judgment lien, may commence an action to enforce the lien against the property that is subject to the lien, without first filing a claim as provided in this part, if in the complaint the holder of the lien expressly waives all recourse against other property in the estate.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NORTON VS HASKINS

Probate Code section 9391 provides: "Except as provided in Section 10361, the holder of a mortgage or other lien on property in the decedent's estate, including, but not limited to, a judgment lien, may commence an action to enforce the lien against the property that is subject to the lien, without first filing a claim as provided in this part, if in the complaint the holder of the lien expressly waives all recourse against other property in the estate.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MTC FINANCIAL V. GCFS, INC.

Riding responded, further demanding the funds and disputing that a judgment lien is a lien against the Property. Having determined that a conflict exists between potential claimants, Petitioner thereafter filed this petition. Petitioner requests to deposit the surplus funds, and upon entry of the order and deposit of the funds, to be discharged from this matter. No opposition has been filed to the deposit of funds and discharge of Petitioner.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

CLOS PEPE VINEYARDS LLC V. ARCADIAN WINERY ET AL.

Ani Construction & Tile, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 771, 778 [" ‘judgment lien statutes are subject to strict construction because they are purely the creation of the Legislature’ "].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

INSTANT FINANCING, INC. VS WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC

Respondent now moves to offset the judgment lien against the amount of the judgment in favor of Petitioner in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

INTELLIGENT SCM LLC ET AL VS RUSSELL W ROTEN ET AL

Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to make any order that would affect FBBC’s lien, including, whether the anti-SLAPP attorney fee award may be applied toward the satisfaction of ISCM’s judgment lien.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

COASTLINE RE HOLDINGS CORP VS GATTU

Plaintiff asserts a judgment lien against Defendant Gattu's interest in real property located at 1385 Trabert Ranch Road, Encinitas, California 92008 (the Property), which is held in the QPRT, based on the judgment entered and an abstract of judgment recorded in 2013.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PICKFORD FUND, LLC VS MASOUD ISAAC KAHROBAIE, ET AL

. §697.340, “[a] judgment lien on real property attaches to all interests in real property where the lien is created.” A resulting trust “arises from operation of law from a transfer of property under circumstances showing that the transferee was not intended to take the beneficial interest.” This functions as an equitable instrument for undoing fraudulent transfers of property. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. v. Schroeder (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 834, 848.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IN RE: CLINTOX LABORATORIES, INC.

Clintox has supported its application with a litigation guarantee confirming NewRez Mortgage is only lienholder ahead of Clintox’s judgment lien. (Davidovich Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2019

INSTANT FINANCING, INC. VS WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC

Respondent now moves to offset the judgment lien against the amount of the judgment in favor of Petitioner in this case.

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2019

UMINA V. LUMINA

As an additional rationale to reject judgment debtor Leonard Umina’s assertion that there is no judgment lien against the El Dorado Hills property, the court finds that judgment debtor Leonard Umina and his spouse, Vicki Umina, are judicially estopped from maintaining that there is no judgment lien attached to the subject real property in El Dorado Hills.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

FROST V. FROST

Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 697.340(b) (judgment lien attaches to all present and future interests in real property that are subject to enforcement of the money judgment). Thus, in a voluntary sale, Katz's lien either would have to be satisfied by the proceeds or it would remain on the property.” (In re Pike (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999) 243 B.R. 66, 70.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

L&J ASSETS, LLC VS ZIMMERMANN

Additionally, BAG Fund's exhibits indicate a Notice of Judgment Lien was sent to Defendant's Escondido address in 2009. (Declaration of Ron Hacker; Exh. 14.) However, Defendant states in his Reply Declaration that he never received these documents. He also points out that the Notice of Lien indicates that the judgment forming the basis of the lien was entered in the Santa Monica Court, and it identifies the name of that case as L&J Assets v. Larion Krayzman et al. (Exh. 14.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

L&J ASSETS, LLC VS ZIMMERMANN

Additionally, BAG Fund's exhibits indicate a Notice of Judgment Lien was sent to Defendant's Escondido address in 2009. (Declaration of Ron Hacker; Exh. 14.) However, Defendant states in his Reply Declaration that he never received these documents. He also points out that the Notice of Lien indicates that the judgment forming the basis of the lien was entered in the Santa Monica Court, and it identifies the name of that case as L&J Assets v. Larion Krayzman et al. (Exh. 14.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

DAN FLOIT VS. WILLIAM CHAPMAN

(Andre Williams Declaration and Ex 2 – Settlement Statement from sale and Ex. 3 – October 25, 2013 from the Chapmans' counsel indicating the payoff for the judgment lien was $35,824.01, including the full amount of costs assessed against all cross-defendants) Chapmans' counsel provided the escrow officer with an Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of Judgment dated November 1, 2013.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DAN FLOIT VS. WILLIAM CHAPMAN

(Andre Williams Declaration and Ex 2 – Settlement Statement from sale and Ex. 3 – October 25, 2013 from the Chapmans' counsel indicating the payoff for the judgment lien was $35,824.01, including the full amount of costs assessed against all cross-defendants) Chapmans' counsel provided the escrow officer with an Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of Judgment dated November 1, 2013.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TIMOTHY J. MAYHER V. RABOBANK, N.A.

Rabobank’s request for judicial notice of the Deeds of Trust, Certificates of Tax Lien, Abstracts of Judgment Lien, and the second amended complaint is GRANTED. Rabobank’s remaining request for judicial notice is DENIED. III. Demurrer Rabobank demurs to all three causes of action on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) 4. A.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.