Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: BC561868, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC561868    Hearing Date: October 2, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 28, 2014, Plaintiffs Connie Hur and Marvin Hur filed this action against Defendants Soo Young Biun and Equity & Trust Company.

            On April 27, 2016, default judgment was entered against Defendants in the amount of $47,519.72.

            On June 5, 2018, non-party G.R. Isidro filed a notice of assignment of judgment, representing that Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors assigned all title, rights, interests, and authority in the judgment to Isidro.

            On January 24, 2020, Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors Connie Hur and Marvin Hur filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, indicating that the judgment had been satisfied in full.

            On May 28, 2024, G.R. Isidro filed the instant motion to set aside the satisfaction of judgment. Defendant Biun filed her opposition on September 18, 2024.

DISCUSSION

            “[A] satisfaction of judgment which has been filed and entered may be set aside by appropriate proceedings for proper cause.” (Brochier v. Brochier (1941) 17 Cal.2d 822, 825.)

            Moving party Isidro argues that the satisfaction of judgment must be set aside because the original judgment creditors, Connie Hur and Marvin Hur, assigned all rights and interest in the judgment to Isidro and had no authority to file a satisfaction of judgment. However, there is no indication that Isidro provided notice of the assignment to Defendant Biun. (See Kaplan v. Hacker (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 571, 572.) “[T]he mere filing thereof does not operate as constructive notice to the judgment debtor.” (Id. at p. 573.)

            A judgment debtor who fully satisfies the judgment is entitled to have an acknowledgment of satisfaction on record. (Southern California Edison Co. v. Harnischfeger Corp. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 9, 13.) Isidro does not contend that the judgment has not in fact been satisfied. The judgment cannot be reinstated against Defendant Biun after Defendant has already paid the amount due in full.

            In sum, Isido has not demonstrated “proper cause” to set aside the satisfaction of judgment. (See Brochier, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 825.)

CONCLUSION

            Non-party G.R. Isidro’s motion to set aside satisfaction of judgment is DENIED.