Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC703112, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC703112    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant Gregory K. Walker’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment is GRANTED.

I.                   MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

“The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is incorrect, and shall be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed under this article.” (Code Civ. Proc. 683.170, subd. (a).)

Defendant Gregory Walker (Defendant) moves to vacate the renewal of judgment filed by Plaintiff Reymond K. Ohanian (Plaintiff) on August 10, 2023, which sought $31,818.45 in prejudgment interest in addition to the $109,583.52 judgment amount, in the aftermath of the rejection of Plaintiff’s appeal. This court on November 1, 2023, granted Defendant’s motion to tax costs as to the same renewal, finding that Plaintiff was only entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the entry of judgment (September 14, 2020) to the date Defendant tendered the judgment amount to Plaintiff on June 2, 2021.

Since the November 1, 2023 order, Defendant has paid both the judgment and the amount of prejudgment interest owed in the set time-frame, plus an additional 20 days worth of interest: $109,563.62 plus $8,434.89. (Ohanian Decl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff in opposition however repeats the arguments made in opposition to the prior motion, and argues that additional interest has accrued since June 2, 2021, based on the difference between the judgment amount tendered by Defendant on June 2, 2021and the amount of post-judgment interest determined by this court to be due. (Opposition at pp. 8–11.)

These arguments are unpersuasive, and Defendant is entitled to an order vacting the renewal of judgment. The reasoning of the prior order still stands, which is that Plaintiff could only hope to accrue interest on his judgment if his appeal — which sought the overturning of the judgment — was ultimately rejected. The court relied on the following language:

By the affirmance of the judgment in this court it was declared that plaintiff should not have appealed the case. It was further declared that defendants' tender in effect was sufficient in amount to cover all plaintiff's just claims, and therefore should have been accepted when made. Plaintiff could refuse to accept the tender, and prosecute his appeal, but he thereby assumed the risk of losing the use of this money pending the appeal in case of an affirmance of the judgment.

(Montano, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 449, quoting Ferrea, supra, 125 Cal. at p. 692.)

Nor is Plaintiff’s argument concerning the additional interest persuasive, as the interest that Plaintiff claims is beyond the June 2, 2021 date as the endpoint on accrued interest. Plaintiff cannot obtain interest needlessly accrued beyond this date in prosecuting his appeal.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.