Opinion
No. CIV. S-92-1653 WBS PAN.
August 31, 2006.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO ENTER SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
This case closed in late 1997. However, in an effort to lift an abstract of judgment recorded against plaintiffs William and Lucille Harris in the state of California, plaintiffs now move the court to order entry of satisfaction of judgment. Counsel of record for defendants Pacific Valley National Bank and West America Bank has declined, after receiving notice of the motion, to respond. Based upon plaintiffs' counsel's observations, the court assumes that defendants' attorneys' lack of response to the motion is based on the facts that (1) the firm they were associated with when they represented defendants no longer exists and (2) "the bank that they represented has been merged into another institution." (Babitzke Decl. ¶ 6.) The court expresses no opinion on the accuracy of counsel's perceptions.
Pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code § 724.050, a "judgment debtor" or "the owner of real or personal property subject to a judgment lien" may demand in writing, upon satisfaction of the judgment, that the judgment creditor "[f]ile an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court." Id. § 724.050 (a)(1). "If the judgment creditor does not comply with the demand within the time allowed, the person making the demand may apply to the court on noticed motion for an order requiring the judgment creditor to comply with the demand." Id. § 724.050(d). Upon determining that the judgment has been satisfied, "the court shall either (1) order the judgment creditor to comply with the demand or (2) order the court clerk to enter satisfaction of the judgment." Id.
The "judgment" at issue here refers to a bill of costs taxed against plaintiffs following the court's award of summary judgment in defendants' favor. (Apr. 28, 1998 Order Awarding Costs 3 (awarding costs in the amount of $9,399.39).) Plaintiffs' counsel represents that he paid this amount in full on March 1, 1999. (Babitzke Decl. ¶ 5 Ex. B.)
At some point, defendants filed an Abstract of Judgment in Kern County which remains on record and is presently interfering with plaintiffs' attempts to sell real property in that jurisdiction. (Id. ¶ 6 Ex. C.) Plaintiffs have asked defendants to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court and defendants have refused to do so. (Id. ¶ 6 Ex. D.)
Accordingly, this dispute has reached a point where the court may intervene and, if the judgment has been satisfied, "either (1) order the judgment creditor to comply with the demand or (2) order the court clerk to enter satisfaction of the judgment". Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 724.050(d). The evidence presented by plaintiffs clearly demonstrates that they have paid the amount required by the Abstract of Judgment entered by the clerk of this court and therefore an order for entry satisfaction of judgment is warranted. (Babitzke Decl. Exs. B, C.) Given defendants' refusal to respond to this motion, however, the court doubts that they will comply with an order from this court directing them to comply with plaintiff's demand. Therefore, the court will, pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code § 724.050(d)(2), order the clerk to enter satisfaction of the judgment. Assumedly, plaintiffs will be able to record such entry in Kern County and proceed with the sale of their property.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for an order to enter satisfaction of judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The clerk of this court shall enter satisfaction of judgment.
Plaintiffs request an award of attorneys' fees related to this motion; however, they failed to provide any supporting documentation, or even specify the amount, for the fees incurred. Accordingly, the court will not address this aspect of their motion.