Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: CHA02CS1676, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: CHA02CS1676    Hearing Date: August 10, 2023    Dept: 26

Hamilton v. Bishop, et al.

MOTION VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

(CCP § 683.110 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Debtor Nancy Bishop’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment and Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Judgment Creditor William J. Hamilton (“Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant action against Judgment Debtor Nancy Bishop (“Judgment Debtor”) on October 16, 2002. Following Judgment Debtor’s failure to file a responsive pleading, default judgment was entered on August 12, 2003. The judgment was renewed on July 10, 2013 and May 25, 2023. Judgment Debtor filed the instant Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment on July 12, 2023. Judgment Creditor filed an opposition on July 27, 2023 and Judgment Debtor replied on August 2, 2023.

Evidentiary Objections

Judgment Debtor’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of William J. Hamilton in support of the opposition are ruled on as follows:

·         Hearsay objections No. 1 overruled; Nos 2-4 sustained;

·         Failure of authentication objection: No. 1 overruled;

·         Untimely opposition objection: overruled

Discussion

Judgment Debtor moves to vacate the latest renewal of judgment in this action on the grounds that this type of judgment can only be renewed once. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.110, a judgment on a claim related to personal debt, in the principal amount of less than $50,000.00, can only be renewed once. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.110, subd. (c)(2).) “Personal debt” is defined as “money 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.110, subd. (d)(3).)

Judgment Debtor has not demonstrated that the judgment on the claim in this action is related to a personal debt, i.e., a debt 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. Judgment Debtor does not discuss the judgment on the claim in this action, although she contends she has never seen a copy of the Complaint. (Motion, p. 3:10-12; Bishop Decl., ¶3.) Nor is a copy of the Complaint available on the Court’s electronic filing system.

In opposition, Judgment Creditor also does not discuss whether the judgment on the claim in this action is related to personal debt. Instead, Judgment Creditor discusses the judgment on the claim in an underlying case, in which Judgment Creditor provided legal services to Judgment Debtor against Howard Rosenberg. (Opp., Hamilton Decl.) That underlying case presumably gave rise to this action against Judgment Debtor. Judgment Creditor argues that the services provided under the retainer agreement in the underlying case pertained to an investment agreement between Judgment Debtor and Rosenberg for the purchase of interests in Andy Warhol paintings, as evidenced by the trial brief in Rosenberg v. Bishop. (Opp., Hamilton Decl., ¶¶1-2 and Exh. A.)

Judgment Debtor does not address whether the services (Judgment Creditor’s legal representation) that are the subject of their transaction were primarily for her personal, family, or household purposes until the reply. Judgment Debtor disputes that she entered into an investment agreement with Rosenberg and that the purpose of the loan she obtained from Rosenberg was to provide money to a friend, Linda Crossey, who was destitute. (Reply, Bishop Decl., ¶¶2-7.) Judgment Debtor’s only evidence of the nature of the agreement with Rosenberg is a self-serving declaration that cannot be corroborated and is contradicted by the narrative set forth in the trial brief regarding Judgment Debtor’s investment agreement with other parties (Rosenberg and Crossey). (See Opp., Hamilton Decl., Exh. A.) Therefore, the Court finds that Judgment Debtor has not demonstrated that the judgment on the claim in this action is related to services rendered for her personal, family, or household purposes.

Conclusion

Judgment Debtor Nancy Bishop’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment and Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Judgment Creditor to give notice.