What is a Motion for Order Vacating Renewal of Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Order Vacating Renewal of Judgment

Recent Rulings on Motion for Order Vacating Renewal of Judgment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Finally, to the extent Judgment Debtor’s opposition seeks affirmative relief, namely, that the Court find the renewal of judgment in 2004 and 2013 to be improper and vacate those renewals, the Court makes no finding without noticed motion, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170. Conclusion Judgment Creditors, Dawn Lyle and Tom McAllister’s Motion for Charging Order is GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

CENTRO WATT PROPERTY OWNER I, LLC VS. COLLINS

(CCP § 683.170.) Defendant seeks to vacate the renewed judgment which is based upon the original default judgment that was entered in October of 2009. Defendant seeks to vacate the renewed judgment on the grounds that he was never served with the summons and complaint. This is a basis to move to vacate the renewal of a judgment. (See Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 207.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

“A successful motion under section 683.170 does not affect the validity of the default or the default judgment. [Citation.] A successful motion under section 683.170 vacates only the renewal of the judgment thereby precluding its extended enforceability under section 683.120.” (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 203-204.) “The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

“A successful motion under section 683.170 does not affect the validity of the default or the default judgment. [Citation.] A successful motion under section 683.170 vacates only the renewal of the judgment thereby precluding its extended enforceability under section 683.120.” (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 203-204.) “The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL (CCP § 683.170) TENTATIVE RULING: Judgment Debtor Alfred M. Villa’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment is CONTINUED TO MAY 21, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Judgment Debtor Villa must file and serve supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Proc., § 683.170 (emphasis added).) Discussion Judgment Debtor moves to vacate the renewal of judgment on the grounds that he was never served with the Petition in this action and the Court never acquired jurisdiction over him.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Saucedo filed a Supplemental Brief in Support of her Motion for Order Vacating Renewal of Judgment and Vacating Default and Default Judgment (the “Supplemental Brief”). To date, Judgment Creditor has not filed a reply.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Saucedo filed a Supplemental Brief in Support of her Motion for Order Vacating Renewal of Judgment and Vacating Default and Default Judgment (the “Supplemental Brief”). To date, Judgment Creditor has not filed a reply.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

., § 683.170, subd. (b).) Defendant did not do so. Thus, the Court finds that the Abstracts of Judgment were properly recorded in the amount of the renewed Judgment. Accordingly, Defendant’s requests that the Court void the Abstract Judgment and Amended Abstract Judgment, and release Defendant’s Property from any liens are DENIED. IV. Conclusion & Order For the stated reasons above, Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Proc.,§ 683.170, subd. (a).) “Not later than 30 days after service of the notice of renewal pursuant to Section 683.160, the judgment debtor may apply by a noticed motion under this section for an order of the court vacating the renewal of the judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170, subd. (b).) Defendant contends that she was never served in 2014 when the Application for Renewal of Judgment (the “Application”) was filed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

A-L FINANCIAL VS. LOVE-WILLIAMS

LOVE-WILLIAMS * TENTATIVE RULING: * On September 26, 2019 the Defendant timely filed a Motion to Judgment under CCP 683.170. Her motion was served upon attorney Frank Blundo who represented both the original plaintiff and the successor to the plaintiff in this case ((Pacific Credit Exchange). Defendant makes a number of objections to the Renewal of Judgment at least one of which appears to be quite plausible.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ANN HON VS HERMAN YEE

Because the failure to serve the summons and complaint on the debtor is a defense to an action on the judgment, it also constitutes grounds for vacating renewal of the judgment. (Fidelity Creditor, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at 201-203, 207.) Hon’s and Lai’s contention that the motion to vacate is untimely on the basis of CCP § 473.5 fails. “[A] motion under section 683.170 is not one for relief from default or default judgment and is not governed by section 473.5.” (Id. at 204.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

CCP § 683.170 Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170 provides that a renewal of a judgement can be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment and must be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170, subd. (a).) A noticed motion to vacate renewal of judgment must be made within 30 days of the service of notice of renewal. (Id., subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CAPITAL ONE BANK V. MONTANEZ, M., ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, subdivision (a), allows a moving party to vacate the renewal of judgment on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment. Montanez attests she never was served with the summons and complaint in this action and was unaware of this litigation until after default judgment had been entered. (Montanez Decl., ¶¶ 1-4.) “[T]he undisputed failure to have served process is a defense to a separate action on a judgment.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2019

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Finally, to the extent Judgment Debtor contends the judgment should not be renewed because it would continue to affect his credit, that is not a basis to vacate the renewal of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170. Based on the foregoing, the Judgment Debtor Calvin Kennard’s Motion to Vacate Default is DENIED. Court clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RECOVERY INC VS FRESH CUT PRODUCE COMPANY

“A successful motion under section 683.170 does not affect the validity of the default or the default judgment. [Citation.] A successful motion under section 683.170 vacates only the renewal of the judgment thereby precluding its extended enforceability under section 683.120.” (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 203-204.) “The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RECOVERY INC VS FRESH CUT PRODUCE COMPANY

“A successful motion under section 683.170 does not affect the validity of the default or the default judgment. [Citation.] A successful motion under section 683.170 vacates only the renewal of the judgment thereby precluding its extended enforceability under section 683.120.” (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 203-204.) “The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Proc., § 683.170 (emphasis added).) Discussion Shawn moves to vacate the Renewal of Judgment on three separate grounds: (1) Annex Financial, Inc. failed to become the assignee of record and had no standing to seek renewal of the judgment (2) the Renewal was made after expiration of the statute of limitations; and (3) Judgment Debtor was not properly served with the renewal documents.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAN FLOIT VS. WILLIAM CHAPMAN

(1) MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT by Andre Williams is GRANTED. Andre Williams seeks to set aside a Renewal of Judgment by the judgment creditors' assignee, Department of Real Estate (DRE), because it erroneously states he still owes money on the judgment, when he claims he has paid his portion in full. On April 24, 2009 judgment was entered against Andre Williams in the amount of $4400 in favor of William Chapman and Martha Chapman [Chapmans].

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DAN FLOIT VS. WILLIAM CHAPMAN

(1) MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT by Andre Williams is GRANTED. Andre Williams seeks to set aside a Renewal of Judgment by the judgment creditors' assignee, Department of Real Estate (DRE), because it erroneously states he still owes money on the judgment, when he claims he has paid his portion in full. On April 24, 2009 judgment was entered against Andre Williams in the amount of $4400 in favor of William Chapman and Martha Chapman [Chapmans].

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANN HON VS HERMAN YEE

Because the failure to serve the summons and complaint on the debtor is a defense to an action on the judgment, it also constitutes grounds for vacating renewal of the judgment. (Fidelity Creditor, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at 201-203, 207.) Hon’s and Lai’s contention that the motion to vacate is untimely on the basis of CCP § 473.5 fails. “[A] motion under section 683.170 is not one for relief from default or default judgment and is not governed by section 473.5.” (Id. at 204.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CLOHECY VS. EMBER HEALTH CARE-POMONA

Section 683.170 provides that “[t]he renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment. Not later than 30 days after the service of the notice of renewal, the judgment debtor may apply by noticed motion for an order vacating the renewal. (Id at (b).) “The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.” (Fidelity Creditor Service v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC VS. DEANIE L SCARANGELLO

The court's tentative ruling is as follows: The court intends to grant Defendant Deanie Scaragello's request for an order vacating the June 28, 2019 Renewal of Judgment in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §683.170, on the grounds that (a) Defendant's motion is timely, having been brought within 30 days of service of the Notice of Renewal, extended an additional 5 days due to service by mail; (b) Defendant submits uncontroverted evidence indicating that she was not personally served with the Summons

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Proc., § 683.170 (emphasis added).) As an initial matter, no proof of service has been filed demonstrating that Judgment Creditor was given notice of the Motion to Vacate the Renewal of Judgment or hearing date, let alone per the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. “Due process requires reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.” (Bergeron v. Dept. of Health Services (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 17, 22.) Additionally, the Motion is not brought pursuant to any legal authority.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Proc., § 683.170 (emphasis added).) As an initial matter, the Motion to Vacate the Renewal of Judgment is untimely. Notice of the renewed judgment was served on Respondent on August 22, 2018. (Proof of Service, entered on 08/27/18.) The deadline to file the instant Motion, therefore, expired on September 21, 2018. The instant motion was filed more than ten months late. Furthermore, the Motion does not set forth a basis to vacate the renewed judgment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.