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)

Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170 The Motion is timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, which provides that a motion to vacate renewal of judgment must be brought “[n]ot later than 30 days after service of the notice of renewal pursuant to Section 683.160.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170 (subd. (b).) Notice of renewal of judgment was served on Judgment Debtors on January 28, 2020 by mail, which adds five days to the notice period, and the Motion was filed on March 2, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADVANTAGE ASSETS VS MARTINEZ

Analysis: The motion is timely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, in that it was brought within 30 days after service of the notice of renewal. The debtor met his burden of proof that he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff has provided no information that the address at which Defendant was served by substituted service was associated with Defendant or that it was his dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business or usual mailing address. see, Fidelity Creditor Serv. v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Candice Garcia-Rodrigo

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Motion is not timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, which provides that a motion to vacate renewal of judgment must be brought “[n]ot later than 30 days after service of the notice of renewal pursuant to Section 683.160.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170 (subd. (b).) Notice of renewal of judgment was served on Judgment Debtors on April 21, 2020 but this Motion was not filed until more than 60 days later. (Proof of Service, filed 4/29/20.)

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BILELLO VS. PLATINUM PROPERTIES

Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 203-04 (“Fidelity contends defendant's motion to vacate renewal of the judgment pursuant to section 683.170 was governed by the time limitations in [CCP] section 473.5…. There is no evidence the Legislature intended to apply the time limits of section 473.5 to a motion to vacate the renewal of a 10-year-old judgment… a motion under section 683.170 is not one for relief from default or default judgment and is not governed by section 473.5”).)

  • Hearing

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC V. STRICKLER

Timeliness of Motion to Vacate the Renewal of the Default Judgment Plaintiff argues that the motion to vacate the renewed judgment is untimely, because Code of Civil Procedure, § 683.170 required defendant to file the motion to vacate the renewal of judgment within 30 days of notice of the renewal pursuant to Section 683.160; and defendant did not file the motion within 30 days of his admitted receipt of the summons and complaint on February 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC VS DWIGHT JOHNSON, ET AL

Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, subdivision (a) 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. Lack of service of summons of the original judgment is a ground for vacating renewal of judgment. (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 207.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING, INC. VS. JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC.

Instead, pursuant to §683.170(c), “upon the hearing of the motion, the renewal may be ordered vacated upon any ground provided in subdivision (a), and another and different renewal may be entered, including, but not limited to, the renewal of the judgment in a different amount if the decision of the court is that the judgment creditor is entitled to renewal in a different amount.” That amount is calculated under §683.150(c).

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

PARTY: Judgment Creditor Montebello Estates Homeowners Association MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT (CCP § 683.170) TENTATIVE RULING: Judgment Debtor Alfred M. Villa’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment and Dismiss the Case with Prejudice is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES VS JOHN A NEWMAN HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BY JOHN A NEWMAN

This motion is timely under CCP §683.170, because it was brought within 30 days after service of the notice of renewal. Defendant asserts the grounds for vacating the renewal is failure to properly serve the summons and complaint. A judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to vacation of renewal of a judgment pursuant to CCP §683.170. Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195. Evid.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Candice Garcia-Rodrigo

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

First, the request is made without noticed motion, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170. Second, the record in this case demonstrates that Judgment Debtor previously and unsuccessfully sought to challenge the renewal of judgment in 2015. (Supp. Reply, RJN, 10/8/15 Docket Entry.)

  • Hearing

(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

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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

(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

  • 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 load this page.