On remand, Rusheen will have an opportunity to defend against Han's claims. There were additional nontort remedies for the allegedly wrongful conduct: moving to recall and quash the writ of execution (see Brown, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 50; Stegge v. Wilkerson (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 867]; Colby v. Colby (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 602, 605 [ 274 P.2d 417]; Meyer v. Meyer (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 48, 49 [ 251 P.2d 335]); posting an undertaking or seeking a writ of supersedeas to thwart enforcement efforts ( O'Keefe, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 135-136); or filing a claim of exemption from execution ( Vineyard v.Sisson (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 931, 938 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 914]). Nevada has similar remedies against improper execution.
(Jones, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d at p. 840, citing Evans v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 186.) “A writ of execution may be recalled and quashed where the issuance was improperly or inadvertently made.” (Meyer v. Meyer (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 48, 49.) “The court's inherent equitable power over its process gives it authority, on motion, to recall and/or quash a writ of execution improperly or inadvertently issued; or to vacate an execution levy.” (Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 6:612, p. 6D 96.)
A writ of execution issued pursuant to a California child support order may be challenged by a motion to recall upon the ground that the debt has been satisfied. In Meyer v. Meyer (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 48 [ 251 P.2d 335], the wife obtained a support judgment for $40 per month in 1938. Many years later, upon her affidavit, the court issued a writ of execution in the amount of $2,400.
Money judgments may be enforced with a writ of execution issued by the court clerk. (§ 699.510.) A judgment debtor may move to recall and quash a writ of execution if it was improperly issued after the judgment was fully paid, or if the writ fails to account for legitimate offsets against payment due. (Meyer v. Meyer (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 48, 49; In re Marriage of Peet (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 974, 977; Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1064-1065.) The judgment debtor challenging a writ of execution has the burden of proving the existence of each fact essential to his claim for relief. (Evid. Code, §500.)