Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: GC049942, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: GC049942    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Douglas Villalpando (Judgment Creditor) brings this motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment he holds against Ramsey S. Mora (Judgment Debtor). Judgment Creditor states that their prior attorney filed a Renewal of Judgment on December 10, 2023 which improperly designated the judgment as being related to a personal debt. This error remained uncorrected throughout Judgment Creditor’s attempts to assign the judgment to P.C. Liang (Assignee).

Judgment Debtor has rendered no opposition to this motion. The Court notes that, pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

The Court maintains the inherent authority to correct clerical errors in a judgment/order so that it may conform to the judgment/order intended. (C.C.P. § 473(d).) This may occur via either a noticed motion made by a party or upon the Court’s own motion. (Id.) There is no time limit in which such a motion must be brought. (Nunn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 346, 360.)

II.                 MERITS

Here, Judgment Creditor states that the December 10, 2023 Renewal of Judgment contains a clerical error which does not conform with intent of the March 13, 2024 judgment. (See Exh. 1.) Judgment Creditor argues that his previous counsel inadvertently checked the box stating this money judgment “has a principal amount remaining unsatisfied of under $50,000 and is for a claim related to personal debt.” (Mot. at p. 1, ¶ 2; see Exh. 2 at p. 2.) Judgment Creditor argues this checkbox is incongruous with the judgment in the case, which included an award based on a cause of action for Fraud. (See Exh. 1 at p. 2, ¶ 2.)

Judgment Creditor explains that the impetus behind requesting this correction is the disparity in post-judgment interest rates between judgments related to personal debt and those that are not. Judgment Creditor correctly points out that judgments related to personal debt are subject to a 5% annual interest rate, while judgments not related to personal debt are subject to a 10% annual interest rate. (See C.C.P. § 685.010(a)(1) & (a)(2).)

The Court finds Judgment Creditor’s arguments as to the clerical error are persuasive. C.C.P. § 685.010(c)(iii) defines “personal debt” as:

[M]oney due or owing or alleged to be due or owing from a natural person arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for the debtor's personal, family, or household purposes.

C.C.P. § 685.010(c)(ii) clarifies that the phrase “due or owing”, does not “…include debts incurred due to or obtained by tortious or fraudulent conduct or judgments for unpaid wages, damages, or penalties owed to an employee.”

As the judgment in this case included Judgment Creditor’s cause of action for fraud, it follows that this judgment is not for a personal debt under C.C.P. § 685.010(c)(ii). This is because the judgment makes clear that the debt was incurred, at least in some part, by virtue of Judgment Debtor’s fraudulent conduct. Given the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that checked box in the December 10, 2023 Renewal of Judgment was erroneous.

Accordingly, the Motion to Amend Judgment to Correct Clerical Error is GRANTED. The Court notes that Judgment Creditor requests the Court sign his proposed order, but that no proposed order was filed. Judgment Creditor is to file the proposed order within the next 5 days, after which the Court will review and sign the order.  

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Douglas Villalpando’s Motion to Correct Clerical Error came on regularly for hearing on November 8, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR IS GRANTED.

JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO FILE A PROPOSED ORDER WITHIN THE NEXT 15 CALENDAR DAYS.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  November 8, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles