Abstract of Judgment in California

What Is an Abstract of Judgment?

“[A]n abstract of judgment is recorded by the prevailing party after a court has awarded judgment and it attaches to all of the losing party's ownership interests in real property in the county in which the abstract is recorded. It makes the judgment creditor a secured creditor and, by statute, can be extinguished only by the recording of an acknowledgment of satisfaction of the underlying judgment or by the judgment creditor's release of the lien.” (Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1069-1070.)

An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court's oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.)

Legal Standard

“For a judgment lien to be valid, an abstract of judgment must be properly recorded and contain all the information required by statute.” (Longview Internat., Inc. v. Stirling (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 985, 989.)

An abstract of judgment must provide the name of the judgment creditor. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 674(a)(4).) A judgment creditor is the person in whose favor a judgment is entered. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 680.240.) It shall also contain, among other items, “[t]he last four digits of the social security number and driver's license number of the judgment debtor if they are known to the judgment creditor. If either or both of those sets of numbers are not known to the judgment creditor, that fact shall be indicated on the abstract of judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 674(a)(6).) An abstract of judgment that does not contain the SSN when known is a nullity. (Keele v. Reich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1129, 1133.) The court does “not rule that an abstract which does not contain a social security number is automatically void. The issue of compliance with statutory provisions for liens must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.” (Keele v. Reich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1129, 1132.)

Amending an Abstract of Judgment

An abstract of judgment, recorded after January 1, 1979, that does not list the social security number and driver's license number of the judgment debtor may be amended by the recording of a document entitled “Amendment to Abstract of Judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 674(b).) “A recorded Amendment to Abstract of Judgment shall have priority as of the date of recordation of the original abstract of judgment, except as to any purchaser, encumbrancer, or lessee who obtained their interest after the recordation of the original abstract of judgment but prior to the recordation of the Amendment to Abstract of Judgment without actual notice of the original abstract of judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 674(b).)

Correcting an Abstract of Judgment

“It is not open to question that a court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts. The power exists independently of statute and may be exercised in criminal as well as in civil cases. The power is unaffected by the pendency of an appeal or a habeas corpus proceeding. The court may correct such errors on its own motion or upon the application of the parties.” (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts. (People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal.3d 212, 256; People v. Barnes (1981) 30 Cal.3d 143, 150; People v. Brown (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1039; People v. Avila (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 416, 424; People v. Kearns (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1131.)

Expunging an Abstract of Judgment

An abstract of judgment can be only extinguished by an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment or by the judgment creditor’s release of the lien. (Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1070.) There is no statutory procedure for expunging an abstract of judgment. (Id.)

Despite this, courts have recognized the authority to expunge an abstract of judgment. (In re Micheal S. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1458.) A judgment lien “is entirely dependent on the judgment” and thus “cannot exist apart from the judgment upon which it is based.” (Bulmash v. Davis (1979) 24 Cal.3d 691, 697.) “Thus, in the ordinary course of events when the judgment is vacated by court order the lien will also cease to exist, because the effect of a vacating order is to eliminate the judgment.” (Id.)