From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Marriage of Richard

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three.
Nov 4, 2003
No. B161253 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2003)

Opinion

B161253.

11-4-2003

In re Marriage of PAUL E. and LINDA V. RICHARD. LINDA V. RICHARD, Appellant, v. PAUL E. RICHARD, Respondent.

Holland & Knight and Paul S. Marks for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.


Linda V. Richard appeals an order for the sale of real property in favor of her former husband, Paul E. Richard. The order was entered more than 16 years after the judgment that initially ordered the sale. Linda contends the superior court had no jurisdiction to enforce the judgment more than 10 years after the judgment was entered. We conclude that the 10-year limit on the enforcement of certain judgments under the Family Code does not apply retroactively and therefore does not bar the enforcement of the judgment here.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Paul and Linda Richard dissolved their marriage in 1985. The judgment dated April 16, 1985, awarded Linda primary physical custody of their three minor children and $350 in monthly child support. The judgment also ordered that the family residence be listed for sale in March 1987 with the proceeds to be divided evenly after certain credits are applied. The judgment granted Linda exclusive use and possession of the home until the sale, provided that she pay the mortgage. The judgment states that the court reserves jurisdiction over the real property until it is sold. The judgment was never renewed or modified.

Paul moved in August 1998 to compel the sale. He declared that he did not seek to compel the sale earlier for the benefit of the children. Linda declared in opposition that Paul led her to believe that he had abandoned his interest in the house and that she therefore did not seek an increase in child support payments for over 12 years, continued to pay the mortgage, and made improvements to the property. She also argued that the judgment cannot be enforced more than 10 years after it was entered, under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020. Linda also sought credit for the improvements that she made, and acknowledged that the rental value of the residence was greater than the mortgage payment.

The superior court granted the motion in October 1998 and issued an order in September 1999 to list the property for sale. The court also ordered certain credits in favor of Linda, including a credit for improvements to the property. The parties did not list the property for sale at that time, however.

Linda sued Paul in a separate action in November 1999, but has not prosecuted the action.

Paul filed an order to show cause in April 2002 to compel Linda to cooperate in the sale of the property. Linda argued in opposition that Paul allowed her and their children to reside in the house in exchange for her agreement not to request an increase in child support, and that Paul abandoned his interest in the property. She also argued that the judgment was unenforceable after 10 years, under Family Code section 291 and Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020.

The superior court concluded that it had the authority to enforce its order of September 1999 even if it had no authority to enforce the judgment after 10 years, and therefore granted the motion in July 2002 and ordered the sale.

CONTENTIONS

Linda contends (1) the July 2002 order enforces the 1985 judgment more than 10 years after the judgment was entered in violation of Family Code section 291 and Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020; and (2) the September 1999 order is void for the same reason and cannot support the later order.

DISCUSSION

1. The Enforcement of Judgments Law and Family Code Section 291

The Enforcement of Judgments Law is codified in chapter 3 of part 2, title 9, division 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Stats. 1982, ch. 1364, § 2, p. 5070.) Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020, part of the Enforcement of Judgments Law, originally stated and continues to state that a money judgment or a judgment for possession or sale of property cannot be enforced more than 10 years after it is entered, except as otherwise provided by statute. (Stats. 1982, ch. 1364, § 2, p. 5073.) Section 683.110 states that the enforceability period of a judgment can be extended by renewal of the judgment.

"Except as otherwise provided by statute, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of entry of a money judgment or a judgment for possession or sale of property: [¶] (a) The judgment may not be enforced. [¶] (b) All enforcement procedures pursuant to the judgment or to a writ or order issued pursuant to the judgment shall cease. [¶] (c) Any lien created by an enforcement procedure pursuant to the judgment is extinguished." (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.020.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 683.310 originally stated that the Enforcement of Judgments Law did not apply to a judgment or order made under the former Family Law Act (former Civ. Code, § 4000 et seq.). (Stats. 1982, ch. 1364, § 2, p. 5077.) Section 683.310 now states that the Enforcement of Judgments Law does not apply to a judgment or order made under the Family Code, except as otherwise provided in the Family Code. Thus, the 10-year limit on the enforceability of judgments did not apply to judgments under the former Family Law Act, and does not apply to judgments under the Family Code absent express authority in the Family Code that the limit applies.

"Except as otherwise provided in the Family Code, this chapter does not apply to a judgment or order made or entered pursuant to the Family Code." (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.310.)

Family Code section 291, enacted in 2000 and effective immediately upon enactment (Stats. 2000, ch. 808, §§ 25, 132), states that a judgment or order for possession or sale of property made under the Family Code is subject to the enforceability period and renewal procedure provided by the Enforcement of Judgments Law.

"A judgment or order for possession or sale of property made or entered pursuant to this code is subject to the period of enforceability and the procedure for renewal provided by Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 683.010) of Division 1 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure." (Fam. Code, § 291.)

Family Code section 291 is a change from prior law, as there was no provision in the former Family Law Act and no prior provision in the Family Code subjecting a judgment or order for the sale of property made under the former Family Law Act or under the Family Code to the enforceability period and renewal procedure provided by the Enforcement of Judgments Law. (See Recommendation: Enforcement of Judgments Under the Family Code: Technical Revisions (Oct. 1999) 29 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1999) p. 700.) Although the California Law Revision Commission proposing the legislation that became Family Code section 291, among other revisions, referred to the revisions as "technical" and "not intended to make major substantive changes," the commission acknowledged that "The general scheme [for enforceability and renewal of judgments under the Enforcement of Judgments Law] was not applied to judgments enforceable under the Family Law Act. [Fn. omitted.] The Enforcement of Judgments Law did not affect the rule in family law that the court has discretion as to the manner of enforcement of judgments. [Fn. omitted.]" (Recommendation: Enforcement of Judgments Under the Family Code: Technical Revisions, supra, 29 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. at pp. 699-700.)

The question is whether this change in the law immediately barred the enforceability of a judgment entered more than 10 years before Family Code section 291 became effective. We conclude that the answer is no, as we shall explain.

2. Family Code Section 291 Does Not Operate Retroactively

"A basic canon of statutory interpretation is that statutes do not operate retrospectively unless the Legislature plainly intended them to do so." (Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232, 243.) We may find that intent expressed in the statutory language or in the legislative history. (Preston v. State Bd. of Equalization (2001) 25 Cal.4th 197, 222.) The operation of a statute is considered to be retroactive if it would substantially change the legal effects of past events. (Western Security Bank, at p. 243.)

There is no indication in the text of Family Code section 291 that the Legislature intended the statute to be retroactive, and certainly no clear language to that effect. Moreover, Linda has cited no legislative history to support the proposition that the statute was intended to be retroactive. We therefore conclude that the statute cannot operate retroactively.

To apply the 10-year limit of Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020 to the judgment here would substantially change the legal effect of Pauls failure to execute the judgment earlier by suddenly rendering the judgment unenforceable when it otherwise would be enforceable. We conclude that Family Code section 291 cannot operate retroactively in that manner. We therefore conclude that the 10-year limit on enforceability does not bar the July 2002 order. Lindas other contention is moot.

In re Marriage of Cutler (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 460, cited by Linda, is distinguishable. That case involved Family Code section 4502, which states that a judgment for child, family, or spousal support is enforceable until paid in full. (Id., subd. (a).) The supporting spouse argued that the statute could not operate to revive a support judgment that was time-barred before the effective date of the statute. (Marriage of Cutler, at p. 472.) He argued that the judgment was previously time-barred because prior law required court approval to enforce a support judgment more than 10 years old and required a court to consider the supported spouses lack of diligence in seeking to enforce the judgment. (Ibid .) The appellate court agreed that Family Code section 4502 could not revive a support judgment that was previously time-barred. The court concluded, however, that the support judgment was enforceable under prior law and was not time-barred, but only required court approval for enforcement. (Marriage of Cutler, at pp. 472-473.) The court concluded further that the elimination of the prior lack of diligence defense to enforcement was merely a procedural change and did not deprive the supporting spouse of a vested substantive right. (Id . at p. 476.) In contrast to Marriage of Cutler, the new law here is a substantive change to prior law and creates an absolute 10-year bar where none existed before.

The law governing enforcement of support judgments has differed from the law governing enforcement of other family law judgments over the years in several ways. (See In re Marriage of Cutler, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at pp. 470-472.)

Finally, it appears that any inequity in awarding Paul half of the sales proceeds after Linda alone contributed to the equity after the judgment through mortgage payments and improvements can be avoided by accounting for those contributions through appropriate credits. Linda sought and received credits under the September 1999 order and has not challenged the courts exercise of discretion in that regard.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

We concur: CROSKEY, Acting P.J., ALDRICH, J.


Summaries of

In re Marriage of Richard

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three.
Nov 4, 2003
No. B161253 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2003)
Case details for

In re Marriage of Richard

Case Details

Full title:In re Marriage of PAUL E. and LINDA V. RICHARD. LINDA V. RICHARD…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three.

Date published: Nov 4, 2003

Citations

No. B161253 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2003)

Citing Cases

Richard v. Richard

In 2003, we issued an unpublished opinion regarding those issues. (In re Marriage of Richard (Nov. 4, 2003,…