Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: BC504114, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Michael S. Yu’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Renewal of Judgment is GRANTED.

On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff Commercial Loan Solutions III LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Michael S. Yu (“Defendant”) for breach of guaranty to enforce a deficiency from a commercial loan guaranty against Defendant.

On December 22, 2014, following a bench trial, the court entered Judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $340,911.14 in principal, $87,804.51 in prejudgment interest, totaling $428,748.65 plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgement of Assignment of Judgment as to CLS ABC, LLC (“Assignee”).

On November 12, 2024, Assignee filed a Notice and Application of Renewal of Judgment.

On January 13, 2025, Defendant filed this Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the Renewal of Judgment entered on December 22, 2014. No opposition or other responsive pleading has been filed.

“A money judgment is enforceable for 10 years from the date of its entry. ([Code Civ. Proc.] §§ 683.020, 683.030; [citation].) (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 200 (“Fidelity”).)

“There are two alternative methods to extend the life of a money judgment.” (Fidelity, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 200.) “First, a judgment creditor may file a separate action on the judgment.” (Ibid.) Second, “a judgment creditor may … renew a judgment for an additional 10 years.” (Ibid.)

A motion to vacate a renewal of judgment may be filed under Code of Civil Procedure §¿683.170. Under this section, a motion to vacate a renewal of judgment must be made within 60 days after notice of the renewal is served and may be based on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170(a)-(b).) “The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.” (Fidelity, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 199.)

“The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.” (Fidelity, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 199.)

Defendant moves to set aside the renewal of judgment entered on November 12, 2024, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section¿683.170(a).[1]

On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action to enforce a deficiency from a commercial loan guaranty against Defendant. On November 1, 2012, Plaintiff foreclosed on Defendant’s business entity’s property located at 9680 Flair Drive, El Monte, CA 91732 (“Subject Property”) and obtained the property in a credit bid transaction. On December 22, 2014, following a bench trial, the court entered a deficiency judgment against Defendant in the amount of $428,715.65 comprised of the difference between what Plaintiff claimed as unpaid debt ($1,210,981.10) and the purchase price of the Subject Property at the foreclosure bid ($880,000.00) plus a pre-judgement interest ($87,804.51).

Defendant argues that Plaintiff deliberately concealed the loan account history for Defendant’s business entity to prevent Defendant from presenting the defense that Plaintiff fabricated the unpaid debt used at trial. (Motion, at p. 9.) Additionally, Defendant contends that as Plaintiff did not include the primary borrower, Defendant’s business entity, in this action, Defendant was unable to conduct discovery to obtain information regarding Plaintiff’s foreclosure practices. (Ibid.)

Subsequently, on October 30, 2014, Defendant and his business entities filed a wrongful foreclosure action contesting the sale of the Subject Property, Case No. BC562415. (Egbase Decl., ¶ 1.) In the wrongful foreclosure action, the court issued a final statement of decision on October 17, 2023. (Egbase Decl., Exh. A.) Defendant argues that the court found that there were many irregularities in the foreclosure process of the Subject Property and that Plaintiff concealed the loan accounting history to prevent the court from determining whether the loan was at default. (Motion, at p. 10.)

As such, Defendant contends Plaintiff fabricated the figures reflected on the loan worksheet which was presented at trial to determine the unpaid debt owed by Defendant on the Subject Property. (Motion, at p. 15; Egbase Decl., Exh. I.) Additionally, Defendant notes that the wrongful foreclosure action reveals that, to support the deficiency judgment, Plaintiff forged a broker priced opinion to reduce the value of the Subject Property from its fair value of $1.5 million to $880,000 and that Plaintiff manipulated the bidding process. (Motion at p. 15.) Defendant also argues that as the wrongful foreclosure action determined that Plaintiff’s foreclosure is void, the judgment in this action is also void. (Id., at p. 17; Egbase Decl., Exh. F.)

Lastly, Defendant argues that the proposed renewed judgment should be vacated as Plaintiff has failed to credit all the payments made by Defendant. (Ibid.) The parties stipulated that $17,747.78 due to Defendant as settlement from an unrelated action were to be paid to Plaintiff. (Id., at pp. 17-18; Egbase Decl., Exh. H.) Moreover, Defendant has made monthly payments of $1,000.00 to Plaintiff which have not been credited to the judgment. (Id., Egbase Decl., Exh. G.)

The court finds that Defendant has met his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the November 12, 2024, judgment should be vacated. The court notes that neither Plaintiff nor Assignee oppose this motion, which the court construes as a tacit admission that Defendant’s arguments are meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].)

Defendant Michael S. Yu’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Renewal of Judgment is GRANTED.

[1] Defendant’s motion is timely as Assignee’s Proof of Service of the Notice and Application of the Renewal of Judgment shows that the documents were served on Defendant on November 18, 2024. Defendant’s motion was filed within 60 days of such service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170(b).)