postjudgment hearing in California

2013As the courts have observed, “requiring a separate appeal from [the fee] order when the judgment expressly makes an award of costs and/or fees serves no apparent purpose.” (Grant v. List & Lathrop (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 993, 997 , italics omitted.) In such a case, a notice of appeal from the judgment “challenges the appropriateness of awarding fees” and puts the respondents “on notice that appellants are seeking review of the award.” (Ibid.; cf. Silver v. Pacific American Fish Co. Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 688, 693 [where judgment refers to award of attorney fees but record reflects entitlemen

1992(See, e.g., UAP-Columbus TV 326132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028,1039 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 856 ]; Grant v. List & Lathrop, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 993, 996-997 .) After the parties file their motions for costs and any motions to tax costs, the trial court holds a postjudgment hearing to determine the merits of the competing contentions.

2018(See People v. Ary (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1016 , 1028-1029, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 482 [trial court's ability to conduct a retrospective competency hearing depends on 'whether the available evidence and witnesses are sufficient to permit [the court] to reach a "reasonable psychiatric judgment" of defendant's competence to stand trial']; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372 , 387-389, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 ; People v. Ary (2011) 51 Cal.4th 510 , 520, fn. 3, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 431 , 246 P.3d 322 [factors relevant to 'feasibility of a postjudgment hearing on a defendant's mental competence when tried' a

2018(See People v. Ary (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1016 , 1028-1029, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 482 [trial court's ability to conduct a retrospective competency hearing depends on 'whether the available evidence and witnesses are sufficient to permit [the court] to reach a "reasonable psychiatric judgment" of defendant's competence to stand trial']; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372 , 387-389, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 ; People v. Ary (2011) 51 Cal.4th 510 , 520, fn. 3, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 431 , 246 P.3d 322 [factors relevant to 'feasibility of a postjudgment hearing on a defendant's mental competence when tried' a

2016Because the military spouse is free to satisfy the indemnity obligation with assets other than the disability benefits, there is no division of those benefits in contravention of Mansell . [Citations.] [¶] This same result has been reached even where there was no express indemnity agreement.” (In re Marriage of Krempin, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013 , italics added.) In sum, then, “ ‘[a] majority of state courts,’ on one theory or another, ‘take equitable action to compensate the former spouse’ when that spouse’s share of retirement pay is reduced by the other’s postjudgment waiver. [Citati

2016Because the military spouse is free to satisfy the indemnity obligation with assets other than the disability benefits, there is no division of those benefits in contravention of Mansell . [Citations.] [¶] This same result has been reached even where there was no express indemnity agreement.” (In re Marriage of Krempin, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013 , italics added.) In sum, then, “ ‘[a] majority of state courts,’ on one theory or another, ‘take equitable action to compensate the former spouse’ when that spouse’s share of retirement pay is reduced by the other’s postjudgment waiver. [Citati

2016In Steiny, the court concluded that the award of interest after entry of the judgment was proper where the complaint requested prejudgment interest and the parties stipulated that request for interest would be adjudicated in a postjudgment hearing. ( Steiny, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 294 .) In Rogers, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th 824 , the court stated that, at the latest, a request for prejudgment interest could be pursued as part of a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subdivision 5, on the ground of “ ‘inadequate damages.’ ” (Rogers, supra, at p. 830 .) The court stated such a mot

2014“The award of postjudgment interest was proper.” (Steiny, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 293 .) Calvo & Clark’s request for prejudgment interest was timely, and Lujan was not denied notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

2025Although Plaintiffs filed their first cost memoranda in August 2011, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1)), a 11 memorandum of costs itself is not enforceable. “‘[T]rial court costs are a mere incident of the main judgment and not separately enforceable.’” (Rostack Investments, Inc. v. Sabella (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 70, 78 .) “When a judgment includes an award of costs and fees, often the amount of the award is left blank for future determination. [Citation.] After the parties file their memoranda of costs and any motions to tax, a postjudgment hearing is held and the tri

2023(See, e.g., People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 298-299 [substantial evidence standard applies to trial court’s resolution of factual inquiry on a motion to suppress evidence].) Of particular significance here, the Supreme Court held in People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1066 , in the context of a postjudgment hearing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, the same deferential standard should be applied to the superior court’s findings of fact even if the court relied solely on the record of conviction to determine the petitioner’s eligibility for resentencing.

2023Crescent Capital did not address a tenant’s defense to an unlawful detainer action based on the provisions of the LAMC, as is at issue in this case. “[A] case is not authority for a proposition not considered therein or an issue not presented by its own particular facts.” (Satten v. Webb (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 365, 383 .) 10 As is noted above, Carradine was added as a defendant in this case after filing a claim under section 1174.3.

2022The statute provides in part: ‘. . . any occupant not named in the judgment for possession who occupied the premises on the date of the filing of the action may object to enforcement of the judgment against that occupant by filing a claim of right to possession as prescribed in this section. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Cardenas v. Noren (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1344, 1349 , italics omitted; § 1174.3, subd. (a) [“any occupant 5 not named in the judgment for possession who occupied the premises on the date of the filing of the action” may file a postjudgment claim of right to possession].)4 If the court f

2022Indeed, unlike a claim of right brought under section 1174.3, where the claimant has the burden of proving her claim is valid (see Arrieta v. Mahon, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 390 ), section 1161b, subdivision (c), provides: “The purchaser or successor in interest shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that a fixed-term residential lease is not entitled to protection under subdivision (b).” In short, whether the claimant is a bona fide tenant, or her lease is a bona fide lease entitled to the protections of section 1161b, are issues to be litigated in the unlawful detainer trial.

2022At the time defendant filed his motion he was represented by counsel for a postjudgment hearing pursuant to In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 , and his counsel declined to file the motion on defendant’s behalf.

2022At the time defendant filed his motion he was represented by counsel for a postjudgment hearing pursuant to In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 , and his counsel declined to file the motion on defendant’s behalf.

2021On August 21, 2020, appellate counsel filed a request with the trial court to correct the record pursuant to People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954 and People v. Clavel (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 516 .

2021On August 21, 2020, appellate counsel filed a request with the trial court to correct the record pursuant to People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954 and People v. Clavel (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 516 .

2017(Ziello, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 653 .) Postjudgment motion practice resulted in an order awarding $19,590 in costs and $140,260 in attorney fees to the judgment creditors. {Ibid.) The judgment debtor appealed only the order awarding attorney fees and costs.

2016In Steiny, the court concluded that the award of interest after entry of the judgment was proper where the complaint requested prejudgment interest and the parties stipulated that request for interest would be adjudicated in a postjudgment hearing. ( Steiny, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 294 .) In Rogers, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th 824 , the court stated that, at the latest, a request for prejudgment interest could be pursued as part of a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subdivision 5, on the ground of “ ‘inadequate damages.’ ” (Rogers, supra, at p. 830 .) The court stated such a mot

2015Moreover, even if the issue were cognizable on appeal, the trial court correctly relied on Hester, supra, 22 Cal.4th at page 295 , which reiterated the principle that where a defendant has pleaded guilty “in return for a specified sentence, appellate courts will not find error . . . [because those] who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to trifle with the courts by attempting to better [it] through the appellate process.” This is no less true with respect to a postjudgment challenge in the trial court to the sentence.

2015Moreover, even if the issue were cognizable on appeal, the trial court correctly relied on Hester, supra, 22 Cal.4th at page 295 , which reiterated the principle that where a defendant has pleaded guilty “in return for a specified sentence, appellate courts will not find error . . . [because those] who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to trifle with the courts by attempting to better [it] through the appellate process.” This is no less true with respect to a postjudgment challenge in the trial court to the sentence.

2014"It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record." (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 .) "'A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct.

2013When the court’s subsequent order setting the final amount is filed, the clerk enters the amounts on the judgment nunc pro tunc.” ( 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 369 , italics added.)) On that basis, we summarized: “In other words, the amount of the cost award is incorporated into the judgment.” (Lucky, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 137 .) We next stated the following: “Interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum accrues on the unpaid principal amount of the judgment (§ 685.010), including the amount of the cost award and attorney fees award (§ 680.300), as of the date of judgment entry (§ 685.020, subd

2013(Sanchez v. Strickland (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 758, 764-765 .) In this case, however, the amended judgment filed in October merely added costs and attorney fees after a postjudgment hearing on these issues.