06AM02192

National Credit Acceptance, Inc. vs. Bradley E. Vaughn

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Correct Error in Rejecting Renewal of Judgment

Filed By: Scalia, Joseph W.

Plaintiff/judgment creditor’s assignee’s motion for nunc pro tunc relief relating to renewal of the original judgment entered on 8/2/2006 is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the moving papers.

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a).

Factual Background. This is a collection matter and the original plaintiff obtained a judgment on 8/2/2006. On or about 7/29/2016, just prior to the deadline to renew the judgment, plaintiff/judgment creditor’s assignee submitted for filing several documents including the assignment of judgment and an application to renew the 2006 judgment. Although the assignment was filed and entered on 7/29/2016 before the expiration of the ten year renewal deadline, the application to renew the 2006 judgment was when processed on 8/3/2016 rejected because the application did not include the assignee’s name in Paragraph 1 (but did include its address).

Judgment creditor’s assignee promptly re-submitted a corrected application to renew

the 2006 judgment on or about 8/5/2016 but despite correcting the earlier omission of the assignee’s name in Paragraph 1, the corrected application was when processed on 8/8/2016 also rejected because the ten year period to renew the judgment had expired on 8/2/2016.

Assignee now seeks an order deeming the filing date of the application to renew the 2006 judgment to be 8/1/2016, prior to the expiration of the ten year renewal deadline on 8/2/2016, since the inadvertent omission of the assignee’s name in Paragraph 1 should not have caused the rejection of the original and otherwise timely application to renew the judgment and since this oversight could have been easily corrected after the timely filing of the application.

Analysis. The court will grant the requested relief since the single error which caused the original timely application to renew the 8/2/2006 judgment not only was de minimis but also easily could/should have been corrected at the time of initial submission on or about 7/29/2016 and since its rejection on 8/3/2016, after expiration of the ten year renewal period, would other cause substantive prejudice to assignee’s ability to pursue an otherwise validly assigned judgment in this case. Therefore, assignee’s motion for relief shall be granted.

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, moving counsel to prepare a proposed order consistent with the foregoing and to submit to the court therewith each of the documents to be backdated to 7/29/2016 pursuant to the granting of this motion.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)