2016-00199751-CU-UD

Elk Grove Village, LLC vs. Tom McDaniel

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Order Amending Judgment

Filed By: Christensen, Scott D.

Plaintiff Elk Grove Village, LLC’s unopposed motion for order amending judgment is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Plaintiff moves to amend the default judgment against Defendants Tom McDaniel and Marianne McDaniel to add the name Marianne Haney as a judgment debtor. Plaintiff has learned since the default judgment was entered that Marianne McDaniel holds certain real property under the name Marianne Haney.

It is clear the Court has jurisdiction to amend a Judgment to reflect a Defendant’s true name. (Thompson v. L.C. Roney, (1952) 112 Cal.App. 2d 420, 425 [“The order here under consideration does not effect an enlargement of the original judgment nor is it a modification thereof to correct a supposed error of law. It is simply an amendment whose purpose is to designate the real name of the judgment debtor.”]; Jack Farenbaugh & Son v. Belmont Constr. (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 1023; Code Civ Proc § 187.) Indeed, every court has the authority to amend a judgment to add an alter ego of an original judgment debtor (Code Civ. Proc., § 187), an equitable procedure premised on the theory that a court is not adding a new party but is merely adding the correct name of the party liable. (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 280.) The basis of this is, of course, that the court having 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 does not affect an enlargement of the original judgment nor is it a modification thereof to correct a supposed error of law. It is simply an amendment whose sole purpose is to designate the real 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 427.)

The motion is granted.

Plaintiff shall present an order for the Court’s signature pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312.