What is an Abstract of Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Abstract of Judgment

Recent Rulings on Abstract of Judgment

PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS RENE MEDINA

On June 20, 2011, an abstract of judgment was issued; it was filed and recorded on August 3, 2011, with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County. (Id., ¶6, Exh. 4.) On July 30, 2018, an amended abstract of judgment was issued; it was filed and recorded on August 9, 2018 with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County. (Id., ¶7, Exh. 5.) On December 5, 2018, a writ of execution was issued. (Id., ¶14, Exh. 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Further, the stipulation states that “In the event defendants default upon one or more of the payments required of defendants as set forth above, then plaintiff may immediately have Judgment entered against defendants for all amounts prayed as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint in the above-entitled action, including interest, attorney fees and costs, less any amounts already paid by defendant and obtain the issuance of any Abstract of Judgment, Writ of Execution, and any other further documentation which plaintiff

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MALDONADO VS OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR

Kompa (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 130, 134–135, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 [levy on bank account and filing of abstract of judgment]; Merlet v. Rizzo (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 53, 64–66, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 83 [motions for writ of sale and reconsideration]; California Physicians' Service v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1321, 1330, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 95 [defensive pleadings].)." Navellier v. Sletten (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 763, 770–771.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY VS BRYAN C. CLARK, ET AL.

“[T]he sixth unreconveyed document . . . is an Abstract of Judgment, in favor of Defendant Peninsula in the amount of $87,809.86, and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles on March 19, 2019 as Document Number 20190243187 (the ‘Peninsula Abstract’).” (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff alleges that it has not received a claim to any of the surplus proceeds by Defendants Clark, Dennis, or Ho. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27, 31.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On June 4, 2019, Assignee of Record filed an Abstract of Judgment against Defendant. On September 3, 2019, Assignee of Record filed the instant Motion to Amend the Renewal of Judgment (the “Motion”). The Motion initially came for hearing on January 8, 2020, at which time the Court found notice to be inadequate and ordered Assignee of Record to file an amended proof of service accurately reflecting the documents filed and served on Defendant within five days.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

BOHM WILDISH, LLP V. TERESA ROEBUCK, TRUSTEE OF THE SHELL BEACH TRUST SETTLEMENT

Defendant states, “Plaintiff’s recording of the abstract of judgment on March 2, 2020, caused the Trust to lose a loan that had been approved subject to a title search on the Trust properties securing the loan.” (Roebuck Decl., ¶ 11.) Defendant does not present any facts as to how the recording of the abstract of judgment caused the loss of the loan.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC V. JOSE VALENCIA

An Abstract of judgment was recorded on September 29, 2017. Code of Civil Procedure Section 663 provides grounds for such a motion: Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or supported by the facts. The Defendant’s motion states: The motion will be made on the grounds that on 2006, Jose willingly gave the vehicle back to the bank because he was not able to pay for the remaining balance of the loan amount.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

DESERT RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION VS SIAVASH SAM MARDJAEE, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s attorney spent 4.7 hours on post-judgment collection including entering the judgment in this State, serving notice, obtaining a writ of execution and two bank levies, and recording an abstract of judgment. (See id. at ¶¶5 and Exh. A.) Thereafter, Plaintiff spent 2.5 hours drafting, filing and serving the instant Motion for Attorney’s fees. (Id. at ¶9 and Exh. A.) Additionally, Plaintiff incurred filing, service and other costs. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ASATUR GALADJIAN, ET AL. VS INTER VALLEY ESCROW, INC., ET AL.

Hecker (1928) 206 Cal. 22, 27 [“Damages for injury to the real property [i.e. slander of title] are but an incident to the action to remove the cloud wrongfully cast upon respondents' real property [i.e. quiet title] by the filing of said abstract of judgment.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LANNY JAY DUGAR VS. DAVID BJORNBAK

., ¶¶3-4; Ex. 1 [3/27/18 Default Judgment]; Ex. 2 [5/7/19 Abstract of Judgment].) Thus, Defendants seek a corrected minute order to avoid any uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the judgment. Defendants also provide the declaration of George B. Piggott as Exhibit 4 to the declaration of Ms. Bjornbak filed on April 2, 2020 and a separate declaration filed on May 20, 2020. Mr. Piggott states that he attended the January 13, 2020 hearing with Ms.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HOWARD FUCHS VS JOEL WERTMAN ET AL

Plaintiff alleged that he immediately applied for an Abstract of Judgment to prevent Defendant from transferring the Property; however, Plaintiff was unable to file an Abstract of Judgment until November 3, 2017, after the Deed of Trust had been recorded against the Property. (SAC ¶¶12, 13, Exh. D.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

No abstract of judgment was recorded at that time with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. In March 2006, Foothill renewed the 1996 Judgment (2006 Renewal of Judgment). While the notice of renewal of judgment and Foothill’s application were recorded, no abstract of judgment was recorded at that time. In March 2009, Mauriss acquired real property located at 1566 Delany Street, Pomona California 91768 (Property).

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

NUNEZ V. SERVIN

The abstract of judgment dated December 12, 2019, shall be vacated as to Defendant Elaine Cantu. Explanation: Renewal of judgment can be vacated on the grounds that service of the underlying complaint was not executed per statute. (See Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Brown (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 202 [“Brown”].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

AMERICAN EXPRESS VS. VASQUEZ

HEARING ON MOTION TO AVOID LIEN FILED BY MIGUEL VASQUEZ * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Defendant, a debtor in bankruptcy, has filed a motion to “avoid lien” – the lien being the default judgment and abstract of judgment recorded in this case. The Defendant’s motion does not disclose a proof of service upon the Plaintiff or any legal basis for the granting of the motion. On January 16, 2020 the Defendant informally advised Department 33 that he “may” drop the motion. The motion is denied for lack of service.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

STEPHEN GERSHMAN VS. YEHUDA VAKNIN

Defendant Vaknin submits his declaration stating that he did not receive actual notice of the action in time to defend himself, as he did not become aware of the case until receiving in the mail an abstract of judgment in June or July of 2019. [Vaknin Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3].

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Finally, Basta expresses frustration with the court’s alleged failure to sign proposed orders and statements on appeal, a commissioner allegedly confusing “two similar, but entirely distinct, motions,” the court’s alleged failure to reject Basta’s own incorrect abstract of judgment, and the court’s alleged rejection of one of Basta’s motion filings and application for a writ of execution. (Mo. at 5-6.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS HECTOR MORESENO, AN INDIVIDUAL

Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion to Include Additional Names of Judgment Debtor on Writ of Execution or Abstract of Judgment on October 15, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

RYAN STANTON VS FRANCES FONTANE MARQUES ET AL

The Court finds, however, that the notice of small claims appeal ($75) and the abstract of judgment filing fee ($41.20) were not necessary to the conduct of this litigation. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Item No. 1 in the amount of $116.20. Item No. 4 (Deposition Costs).

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

WILLIAM BRAD MCALPIN VS GLEN OAKS ESCROW, INC

In response to the Motion for Sale, plaintiff submitted the Abstract of Judgment to the bankruptcy court, and directly to Glen Oaks. The bankruptcy court found that plaintiff’s lien on the commercial building was valid and first in time, and that plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the net proceeds to partially satisfy the lien.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

WILSON, FRANK ET AL VS DELTA HOMES, INC. ET AL

CCP §674(c)(1) states: “The abstract of judgment shall be certified in the name of the judgment debtor as listed on the judgment and may also include the additional name or names by which the judgment debtor is known as set forth in the affidavit of identity, as defined in Section 680.135, filed by the judgment creditor with the application for issuance of the abstract of judgment.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff recorded an Abstract of Judgment with the Los Angeles County Recorder, Document No. 20160475612.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS RENE MEDINA

On June 20, 2011, an abstract of judgment was issued; it was filed and recorded on August 3, 2011, with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County. (Id., ¶6, Exh. 4.) On July 30, 2018, an amended abstract of judgment was issued; it was filed and recorded on August 9, 2018 with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County. (Id., ¶7, Exh. 5.) On December 5, 2018, a writ of execution was issued. (Id., ¶14, Exh. 10.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS RENE MEDINA

On June 20, 2011, an abstract of judgment was issued; it was filed and recorded on August 3, 2011, with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County. (Id., ¶6, Exh. 4.) On July 30, 2018, an amended abstract of judgment was issued; it was filed and recorded on August 9, 2018 with the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County. (Id., ¶7, Exh. 5.) On December 5, 2018, a writ of execution was issued. (Id., ¶14, Exh. 10.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

SJO INVESTMENTS, LLC. VS MICHAEL WAYNE RIEDEL, ET AL

Plaintiff contends that the sanctions remain unpaid, and plaintiff wishes to have the clerk issue an abstract of judgment. As reflected in the minute orders, the court did not adopt the May 31, 2019 tentative ruling. The hearing was continued to June 14, 2019. On that date, the court deemed the motions for terminating sanctions moot because sanctions had previously been issued, which was on March 12, 2019. There is no court order as to sanctions in the amount asserted by plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RANCHO BELLA VISTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. VS AMELIA ROBERTA ESPINOSA

Plaintiff’s attorney spent 4.7 hours on post-judgment collection including entering the judgment in this State, serving notice, obtaining a writ of execution and bank levy, and recording an abstract of judgment. (See id. at ¶¶5 and Exh. A.) Thereafter, Plaintiff spent 2.5 hours drafting, filing and serving the instant Motion for Attorney’s fees. (Id. at ¶9 and Exh. A.) Additionally, Plaintiff incurred filing, service and other costs. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.