07CS00507

Umpqua Bank vs. Twin Cities Cardiothoractic Surgery

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Amend Application for Renewal of Judgment

Filed By: Policar, Raymond A.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Application for Renewal of Judgment is unopposed and is granted.

The statutory renewal of judgment is an automatic, ministerial act accomplished by the clerk of the court; entry of the renewal of judgment does not constitute a new or separate judgment. “Filing the renewal application (and paying the appropriate filing fee, Gov.C. § 70626(b)) results in automatic renewal of the judgment. No court order or new judgment is required. The court clerk simply enters the renewal of judgment in the court records. [See CCP §683.150; Jonathan Neil & Assocs., Inc. v. Jones (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1487, 1489… ].” (Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts (The Rutter Group 2007) ¶ 6:75, p. 6A-41.) Thus, “[t]he judgment renewal procedure is a different mechanism to extend the life of a judgment than that of bringing an independent action on a judgment. (Fidelity Creditor Service v. Browne, (2001), 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 200.) Entry by the trial court clerk of a renewal is a ministerial act … .” (Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones, (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1481,1489, fn. 1.) “[R]enewal does not create a new judgment or modify the present judgment. Renewal merely extends the enforceability of the judgment.” (Id. at p. 1489.) The renewed judgment “has no independent existence” from the original judgment. (Jonathan Neil, at p. 1490.)

Here, in the renewal application, Plaintiff inadvertently used the wrong middle initial for judgment debtor Michael F. Richman when he applied to renew the judgment in January of 2017. The original judgment used the correct name of the debtor.

The clerical error resulted in the Renewal of Judgment to be entered against Michael J. Richman instead of Michael F. Richman.

First, it is clear the Court has jurisdiction to amend a Judgment to reflect a Defendant’s true name. The basis of the rule is, of course, that the court having acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject of the action, it necessarily possessed the power to correct a misnomer. Mirabito v. San Francisco Dairy Co. (1935) 8 Cal. App. 2d 54, 59-60; see, also Cal Code Civ Proc § 187 . The matter under consideration herein does not affect an enlargement of the original Judgment, nor it is a modification, but to correct an error of law. It is simply an amendment whose sole purpose is to designate the true and legal name of the Judgment Debtor. Thompson v. L.C. Ronev & Co.,(1952) 112 Cal. App 2d 420,

425 .The liberality with which a court permits amendments of judgments where the record itself clearly reflects a clerical error applies equally to the use of extrinsic evidence to clarify the name of the defendants/judgment debtors. Id. at p. 427. Indeed, judges are encouraged to be liberal in allowing amendments to ensure justice is done and to avoid an inequitable result that would follow from failing to amend the judgment. See, e.g. Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1110. CCP § 473(a) provides the court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party.

The Court amends nunc pro tunc the Application and Renewal of Judgment, correcting the middle initial of judgment debtor as F. instead of J. “The Court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” CCP 473(d)