Opinion
8-9-1955
John CLARK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. C. C. CUIN, Imperial Horsemen's Association, a corporation, Hugh Keating, individually and in his official capacity as Constable of Justice Court of the County of Imperial, State of California, Second Judicial Township, et al., Defendants, C. C. Cuin, Respondent. Civ. 5109.
Dickenson, Sattinger & McKee, El Centro, for appellant. Charles F. Sturdevant, Jr., El Centro, for respondent.
John CLARK, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
C. C. CUIN, Imperial Horsemen's Association, a corporation, Hugh Keating, individually and in his official capacity as Constable of Justice Court of the County of Imperial, State of California, Second Judicial Township, et al., Defendants,
C. C. Cuin, Respondent.
Aug. 9, 1955.
Hearing Granted Oct. 5, 1955. *
Dickenson, Sattinger & McKee, El Centro, for appellant.
Charles F. Sturdevant, Jr., El Centro, for respondent.
MUSSELL, Justice.
This is an action to quiet title to 80 acres of land in Imperial county. Plaintiff claims title by purchase at an execution sale and defendant Cuin, by way of cross-complaint, seeks a decree quieting his title to the property as a redemptioner from plaintiff.
There is no dispute as to the following facts: The property involved was acquired by Imperial Horsemen's Association on February 16, 1948. On November 18, 1949, the firm of Bratton and Sturges filed suit against the Horsemen's Association and attached the real property involved. A judgment was entered in favor of Bratton and Sturges and filed on May 12, 1950. A writ of execution was then issued and the land was sold at execution sale on October 20, 1950, to plaintiff John Clark for the sum of $4,700. A certificate of sale was issued to Clark and recorded in Imperial county November 17, 1950. On November 25, 1949, one Lee Reams filed an action against the said Horsemen's Association and attached the real property previously attached by Clark in his action. A judgment in the amount of $679.63 in favor of Reams and against said Horsemen's Association was entered on April 10, 1951, and an abstract thereof was recorded in Imperial county on April 29, 1951. On October 1, 1951, Reams assigned his said judgment to the defendant C. C. Cuin and this assignment was recorded October 15, 1951. On October 11, 1951, there was delivered, on behalf of Cuin, to constable Hugh Keating, the selling officer at the execution sale at which plaintiff Clark purchased said property, the following documents: (1) A copy of the judgment certified by the clerk in the Reams v. Imperial Horsemen's Association action; (2) A copy of the assignment of the Reams judgment, verified by the affidavit of Cuin and affirming the amount then actually due on the judgment; (3) A notice of redemption and cashier's check in the amount of $5,076. Notice of redemption was thereafter served on the sheriff of Imperial county and was recorded October 13, 1951. On October 11, 1951, constable Keating executed and delivered to Cuin a certificate of redemption, which was recorded October 13, 1951.
On October 18, 1951, attorneys Dickenson and Cline tendered the sum of $707.38 to defendant Cuin in payment of the Lee Reams judgment. Cuin refused to accept this tender and said attorneys then on October 19, 1951, deposited the amount tendered to the account of Cuin in the El Centro branch of the Bank of America. A duplicate deposit slip was mailed to Cuin and thereafter Cuin transferred $707.38 to the trust account of his attorneys. Subsequent to this transfer attorneys Dickenson and Cline filed a motion to compel satisfaction of the judgment in the Reams v. Imperial Horsemen's Association case and on August 29, 1952, the superior court of Imperial county made its order directing the clerk to enter satisfaction of this judgment. Cuin appealed from said order and it was affirmed by this court in Reams v. Imperial Horsemen's Association, 119 Cal.App.2d 714, 260 P.2d 125. On December 24, 1951, constable Keating executed and delivered a deed to the property involved to Cuin and recorded the deed the same date.
The record herein shows that Cuin obtained an assignment of the Reams judgment on October 1, 1951; that on October 11, 1951, he delivered certain documents to the constable, together with a cashier's check in the sum of $5,076 in an attempt to effect a redemption of the property and that the constable issued a certificate of redemption. However, on October 18, 1951, attorneys Dickenson and Cline tendered the sum of $707.38 to Cuin in payment of his judgment. Cuin refused to accept the money and following his refusal, the superior court, after hearing on a motion therefor, ordered the clerk to enter satisfaction of this judgment. Cuin appealed from that order and it was suffirmed by this court in Reams v. Imperial Horsemen's Association, 119 Cal.App.2d 714, 260 P.2d 125. That decision has become final and Cuin's judgment was paid and satisfied as of October 18, 1951. In that action appellant Cuin claimed that his use of the Reams judgment in the redemption proceedings was a defense to the motion, and this contention was by the court held to be untenable. Cuin's lien ceased to exist when his judgment was satisfied. City Properties Co. v. Fitzmaurice, 42 Cal.App. 16, 183 P. 267; In re Baby's Estate, 87 Cal. 200, 25 P. 405; Salveter v. Salveter, 11 Cal.App.2d 335, 337, 53 P.2d 381; 15 Cal.Jur. 226; 23 C.J. 716; 33 C.J.S., Executions, § 254, p. 531, note 62. Cuin's judgment was satisfied as of October 18, 1951, and he then had no further interest in the real property involved. Therefore, the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that Cuin is the owner of and entitled to possession of the property.
Appellant contends that Cuin had no judgment lien entitling him to redeem since the legal title to the property passed to Clark at the execution sale on October 20, 1950, and Cuin's judgment was not obtained until April 10, 1951, at which time the Imperial Horsemen's Association had no title or interest in the property subject to a judgment lien. There appears to be merit in this contention as it was held in Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532, 534, 111 P.2d 390, 393, that the statutory lien of a judgment upon real estate of the judgment debtor can attach only upon property in which such debtor has a vested legal interest and that the right to redeem carries no vested interest in land. Cuin relies upon Stetson v. Sheehan, 52 Cal.App. 353, 200 P. 387, as holding to the contrary, but as was said in Helvey v. Bank of America, supra, commenting on the Stetson case: 'In that case, it is clear that the vested legal title was in the judgment debtor at the time of the recordation of the lien.' In the instant case the vested legal title was in Clark when he purchased the property at the execution sale. Elbert, Ltd. v. McKenna, 116 Cal.App.2d 480, 483, 254 P.2d 107. Cuin's judgment was not obtained until long after the debtor's property had passed to Clark. Thereafter Clark had legal title and all that the debtor had was a right to redeem. However, since we have concluded that Cuin's judgment lien, if any, was extinguished by the satisfaction of the judgment and he is bound by the judgment satisfying it, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon this contention.
The judgment is reversed.
BARNARD, P. J., concurs. --------------- * Opinion vacated 295 P.2d 401.