Chapter 14 Enforcement of Judgment

 

 volume 18

 

 

www.californiacivilprocedure.com

 

Chapter 14. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

 

California Codes -List of All Titles

California Code of Civil Procedure

Basic California Informant of Judgment provisions

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE  SECTION 717.010 
717.010. A judgment not otherwise enforceable pursuant to this
title
may be enforced by personally serving a certified copy of the
judgment on the person required to obey it and invoking the power of
the court to punish for contempt.

CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 2.  ENFORCEMENT OF MONEY JUDGMENTS

      CHAPTER 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Article 1.  Property Subject to Enforcement of Money
                   Judgment ................................... 695.010-695.070
       Article 2.  Amount to Satisfy Money Judgment ........... 695.210-695.221
      CHAPTER 2.  LIENS
       Article 1.  General Provisions ......................... 697.010-697.060
       Article 2.  Judgment Lien on Real Property ............. 697.310-697.410
       Article 3.  Judgment Lien on Personal Property ......... 697.510-697.670
       Article 4.  Execution Lien ............................. 697.710-697.750
       Article 5.  Other Liens Created by Enforcement Process   697.910-697.920
      CHAPTER 3.  EXECUTION
       Article 1.  General Provisions ......................... 699.010-699.090
       Article 2.  Writ of Execution and Notice of Levy ....... 699.510-699.560
       Article 3.  Property Subject to Execution .............. 699.710-699.720
       Article 4.  Methods of Levy ............................ 700.010-700.200
       Article 5.  Duties and Liabilities of Third Persons
                   After Levy ................................. 701.010-701.070
       Article 6.  Sale and Collection ........................ 701.510-701.680
       Article 7.  Distribution of Proceeds of Sale or
                   Collection ................................. 701.810-701.830
      
DIVISION 3.  ENFORCEMENT OF NONMONEY JUDGMENTS
      CHAPTER 1.  GENERAL PROVISIONS .......................... 712.010-712.070  
      CHAPTER 2.  JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY  714.010-714.030
      CHAPTER 3.  JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY .... 715.010-715.050
      CHAPTER 4.  JUDGMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY ............... 716.010-716.030
      CHAPTER 5.  OTHER JUDGMENTS ..................................... 717.010   


    TITLE 11.  SISTER STATE AND FOREIGN MONEY--JUDGMENTS
     CHAPTER 1.  SISTER STATE MONEY--JUDGMENTS ................ 1710.10-1710.65
     CHAPTER 2.  FOREIGN MONEY--JUDGMENTS ......................... 1713-1713.8
    TITLE 11.5.  COURT-RELATED ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
                 PROCESSES .......................................... 1730-1743
    TITLE 11.6.  CIVIL ACTION MEDIATION .......................... 1775-1775.15
    TITLE 11.7.  RECOVERY OF PREFERENCES AND EXEMPT PROPERTY IN AN
                 ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS ............ 1800-1802
    TITLE 13.  INSPECTION WARRANTS ............................ 1822.50-1822.60
   
     
    TITLE 7.  UNIFORM FEDERAL LIEN REGISTRATION ACT ................. 2100-2107

Federal Provisions:

Rule 69. Execution 
(a) In General.
Process to enforce a judgment for the payment of money shall be a writ of execution, unless the court
directs otherwise. The procedure on execution, in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of a
judgment, and in proceedings on and in aid of execution shall be in accordance with the practice and
procedure of the state in which the district court is held,
existing at the time the remedy is sought,
except that any statute of the United States governs to the extent that it is applicable. In aid of the
judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or a successor in interest when that interest appears of
record, may obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, in the manner provided
in these rules or in the manner provided by the practice of the state in which the district court is held.

(b) Against Certain Public Officers.

When a judgment has been entered against a collector or other officer of revenue under the
circumstances stated in Title 28, U.S.C., § 2006, or against an officer of Congress in an action
mentioned in the Act of March 3, 1875, ch. 130, § 8 (18 Stat. 401), U.S.C., Title 2, § 118, and when the
court has given the certificate of probable cause for the officer's act as provided in those statutes,
execution shall not issue against the officer or the officer's property but the final judgment shall be
satisfied as provided in such statutes.

Ed. Note; Note That Rule 69 applies to a " judgment for the payment of money"
Query:  is An Order for restitution a
" judgment for the payment of money" 
with in the meaning of Rule 69


LII Notes To Rule 69

Rule 70. Judgment for Specific Acts; Vesting Title 

If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or to deliver deeds or other documents or
to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may
direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the
court and the act when so done has like effect as if done by the party. On application of the party
entitled to performance, the clerk shall issue a writ of attachment or sequestration against the property
of the disobedient party to compel obedience to the judgment. The court may also in proper cases
adjudge the party in contempt.
If real or personal property is within the district, the court in lieu of
directing a conveyance thereof may enter a judgment divesting the title of any party and vesting it in
others and such judgment has the effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law. When any order
or judgment is for the delivery of possession, the party in whose favor it is entered is entitled to a writ
of execution or assistance upon application to the clerk.

FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE  by
CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT
Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts 
The University of Texas
ARTHUR R. MILLER
Bruce Bromley Professor of Law, Harvard University 
and RICHARD L. MARCUS
Distinguished Professor of Law, 
University of California Hastings College of the Law St. Paul, Minn.
WEST PUBLISHING CO. 1997
(CITE AS:   Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure:  Civil 2d Section____ 

Annotations/Footnotes

Ch. 9 § 3012 page 152 EXECUTION

Rule 69

Town of Rutherfordton , C.A.4th. 1941. 1'.32 Kid 342. Proceedings in the nature 
of mandamus for the collection of judgments are "proceedings supplementary 
to and in aid of a judgment" within Rule 69. Couch v. City of
Villa Rica , Georgia
D.C.Ga.1962, 203 F.Supp. 897.

22. Contempt

Contracting firm which did not pay court-ordered amount into union trust 
fund for benefit was properly cited for contempt. even though there was an 
alternative method of enforcing the order through issuance of a writ of 
execution. Laborers' Pension Fund v. Dirty Work Unlimited, Inc., C.A.7th, 1990. 919 F.2d 491.

When the bankruptcy trustee filed a motion, under the Civil 
Practice Act N.Y. 1 505. subdivision 4 providing for the enforcement
without execution of a judgment directing the payment of money
to 
the officer of the court, to commit defendant for contempt for 
nonpayment of the judgment, the denial of the motion was a proper 
exercise of discretion. Keesing v. Solomon, CA.2d. 1944. 142 F.2d 1005.

Even though the security deed grantor's judgment creditor and not 
the grantee to whom the rents were assigned was entitled tinder Georgia law 
to the rents paid to the grantee upon giving the restraining notice, when 
the application of New York law would produce a different result and the law 
of Georgia was somewhat misty regarding the issue. the grantee and the 
grantor would not be declared in contempt of court for having violated the 
restraining notice. Ivor B. Clark Co. v. Hogan, D.C.N.Y.1968. 296 F.Supp. 398, 
order modified D.C.N.Y.1969, 296 F.Supp. 40 7.

Garnishee summons issued by the District Court of Hawaii to satisfy a 
judgment entered by the District Court of Alaska directing the garnishees 
to hold and secure all the debts owed to the judgment debtor and providing
 
that the failure to hold and secure until further order of the court contained 
a proper reference to the usable contempt powers of the court to punish the 
intentional disregard of the garnishee summons. Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International 
Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's
Union , D.C.Haw.1955, 131 F.Supp. 866.

But see

Defendant could be punished for contempt for failing to make payments in 
accord with a consent order under the Land Sales Disclosure Act even though
Texas law prohibited imprisonment for debt. The order was not a money 
judgment, but an equitable remedy imposed under a federal statute to 
protect the public interest. Pierce v. Vision Investments, Inc., C.A.5th. 
1986. 779 F.2d 302.

Rule 69's requirement that procedure for execution of judgment for 
payment of money be in accordance with state practice had no 
application to petition of National Labor Relations Board that employer 
and its chief officer and stockholder be held in contempt for violation of 
judgment enforcing cease and desist order which required employer to 
make available
various records necessarv to determine the amount of back 
pay due employees who had been laid off to discourage support for 
union. N.L.R.B. v. Trans Ocean Export Packing, Inc., C.A.9th, 1973, 473 F.2d 612.

It was a proper use of the district court's authority to proceed with a contempt 
proceeding against employer for its failure to comply with a judgment of the court 
requiring it to satisfy its obligation for past‑due contributions to an employee trust 
fund. Robbins v. Labor Transp. Corp., D.C.I11.1984, 599 F.Supp. 705.

page 153

To enforce the usual judgment for payment of money. the ordinary process is a writ of execution and not a proceeding for contempt. However, if the judgment for payment of money 
repre
sents a sum payable because of the defendant's failure to perform a public 
obligation imposed by statute, it is permissible to vindicate the public pol­icy embodied 
in the statute by insti­tuting a proceeding for civil or crimi­nal contempt. 
King v. Greenblatt, D.C.Mass.1980, 489 F.Supp. 105.

23. Receiver

Under an Oklahoma statute authorizing the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution, 
the availability of the reme­dy does not depend on the absence of a legal remedy. 
Edmonston v. Sisk, C.A.10th,1946,156 F.2d 300.

24. As much authority

Absent controlling federal statutes, a federal district court has the same 
authority to aid judgment creditors as that provided to state courts under local law. 
Duchek v. Jacobi, C.A.9th, 1981, 646 F.2d 415.

A district court has the same authority to aid judgment creditors in supple­mentary 
proceedings as that which is provided to state courts under local law in absence of 
controlling federal statute. U.S. ex rel. Goldman v. Mere­dith, CA.8th, 1979, 596 F.2d 1353, 
certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 76, 444 U.S. 838, 62 L.Ed.2d 50.

The district court has the same authori­ty to aid judgment creditors in supple­mentary 
proceedings of execution as courts of the state in which it sits, in the absence of a 
controlling federal statute. H.H. Robertson Co. v. U.S. DiCarlo General Contractors, Inc., 
D.C.Mo.1992, 789 F.Supp. 998, af­firmed C.A.8th, 1993, 994 F.2d 476, certiorari denied 
114 S.Ct. 621, 510 U.S. 1019, 126 L.Ed.2d 585.

25. Interest in property

State law applies in determining wheth­er property is tranaferrable or subject to a levy of 
execution and sale. Hayes v. Schaefer, C.A.6th, 1968, 399 F.2d 300.

In proceeding to execute on judgment, district court is bound to follow state law in 
determining whether defendant has an interest in property which is subject to execution. 
In the absence of a federal statute providing otherwise, property which is exempt from 
attach­ment under state law is not subject attachment in execution of a federal judgment.
 Schreiber v. Kellogg, D.C.Pa.1994, 849 F.Supp. 382.

26. Successor corporation

In determining the liability of the corpo­ration's successor for the judgment debt of the 
corporation, Utah corpo­rate law was controlling when applica­ble. 
Christiansen v. Mechanical Con­tractors Bid Depository, C.A.10th, 1968, 404 F.2d 324.

27. Existence of lien

See 28 U.S.C.A.§ 1962.

In determining whether a lien arose from proceedings on or in aid of a judgment, the 
district court, pursuant to Rule 69 was required to follow the practice and procedure 
existing at the time the remedy was sought in the state in which the district court was held. 
U.S. v. Pearson, D.C.N.Y.1966, 258 F.Supp. 686.

State statute providing that a judgment becomes dormant after five years and ceases 
to operate as a lien applies to a judgment of the federal court in that state. U.S. for Use & Benefit of

 

Application of rule

LICHTENSTEIN v. LICHTENSTEIN Cite as 425 F.2d 1111 (1979)
No. 17915.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit,

Civil contempt proceedings. The United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania, Harold K. Wood, J., found alleged contemnor to be in 
contempt for failure to perform tlutics undertaken in agreement of settlement of litigation. 
The alleged contemnor appealed. The Court of Appeals, Stale y•, Circuit Judge, 
held that where there was no specific order of trial court which required alleged 
contemnor to pay sum of money to escrow agent but order merely provided means 
by which his liability under settlement agreement for moneys allegedly wrongfully 
paid to him by corporation was to be determined and order was dependent upon 
prospective extrajudicial determination of liability,
alleged contemnor could not be 
held in contempt
for refusal to pay sum ..f money to the escrow agent. Reversed.

1. Contempt (key) 20

"Civil contempt" is committed when a person violates an order of court which requires 
that person in specific and definite language to do or refrain from doing
an act or series of acts.
    See publication Words and Phrases fur other judicial constructions and definitions 

Contempt «25

Where contempt of court consists of refusal to pay sum of money, specificity and 
definiteness requires art minimum that  court order exists which requires that the 
contemnor perform the act of payment of a specific sum. 

3. Contempt P20

A court order which provides for prospective extrajudicial determination of liability 
lacks requisites of specificity and definiteness to sustain finding of contempt for 
failure to perform act of payment.

4. Contempt a20

Where there was no specific order of trial court which required alleged contemnor |
to pay sum of money to escrow agent but rather merely provided means by which his 
liability under settlement agreement for moneys allegedly wrongfully paid to him by 
corporation was to be determined and order was dependent upon prospective extrajudicial 
determination of liability, alleged contemnor could not be held in contempt for refusal to pay sum of money to the escrow agent.

5. Contempt C~68

In civil contempt proceedings, trial court may, in its discretion, award expenses, costs, 
and fees to the petitioner but these items are restricted to reasonable amounts incurred in 
prosecuting the petition and some basis for their award must appear in the record.

6. Contempt at38

Where record in contempt proceeding was devoid of evidence by which
reasonableness of award of expenses, costs and fees to petitioner could be tested,
trial court abused its discretion by awarding the items.

 

PIERCE v. VISION INVESTMENTS, INC. Cite as 779 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1986)

303

Opinion vacated, and case remanded.

1. Constitutional Law e‑83(3)

Consent order, entered to enforce In­terstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, under which owners 
of family corporations were permanently enjoined from engaging in activities considered unlawful 
and were required to make payments to purchasers who had lost their property upon fore­closure, 
was not a "money judgment" or "debt," within meaning of federal prohibi­tion against 
imprisonment for debt
[28 U.S. C.A. § 2007(a)], but rather, was an eq­uitable decree and an 
injunction in the pub­lic interest, and was therefore properly en­forceable by judgment of civil 
contempt. Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, §§ 1402‑1422, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701‑1720.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.

2. Constitutional Law 83(3)

Texas constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt [Vernon's Ann.Texas Const. Art. 1, § 18] did not pro­hibit use of imprisonment as appropriate contempt sanction for failing to make pay­ments in accordance with court order en­tered to enforce Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act unless contemner demon­strated inability to pay. Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, §§ 1402‑1422, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701‑1720; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2007(a).

(Opinion July 19, 1985, 5th Cir., 753 F.2d 539)

Plaintiff‑appellee Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary) seeks a rehearing, with a suggestion for rehear­ing en bane, of our original panel opinion in this case, Pierce v. Vision Investments, Inc., 765 F.2d 539 (5th Cir.1985). The Sec­retary contends that we erred in holding that civil contempt was nit an available remedy for violation of a consent order entered in a suit brought under the Inter­state Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. We find the argument of the Secretary per­suasive; therefore, we grant panel rehear­ing, vacate our previous opinion, and sub­mit the following opinion. The grant of panel rehearing moots the suggestion for rehearing en bane.

In this appeal from a civil contempt judg­ment for failure to comply with the pay­ment terms of a consent order entered to enforce the Interstate Land Sales Full Dis­closure Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1701‑1720, the contemners urge us to apply the prohibi­tion against imprisonment for debt of 28 U.S.C. § 2007(a) and Tex.Const. art. I, § 18. Finding that the district court's use of contempt sanctions to enforce the pay­ment terms of the consent order does not fall within the scope of the section 2007(a) prohibition and that Texas law does not prohibit the use of contempt in this case, we hold that a contempt judgment is avail­able to enforce the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act and remand the case to the district court for a hearing to deter­mine the contemner's ability to comply with the consent order.

I. FACTS AND

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appeal from the United States District The Secretary brought a suit to enforce

Court for the Western District of Texas . the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure



Downloadable United States Code
Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Titles i-50

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. ... FRCP. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I. Scope
of Rules-- One Form of Action. Rule 1-- Scope and Purpose of Rules. ... 
www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/Rules/frcp.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-LII   

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH FORMS 
[PDF] www.house.gov/judiciary/civil00.pdf
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH FORMS 
DECEMBER 1, 2000 E PLURIBU UNUM S 
Printed for the use of THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ... 
Text version - Similar pages

IRA 4 Law-Rules
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - INDEX
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. AS LAST AMENDED 12/1/98. Table
of Contents I. Scope of Rules -- One Form of Action. ... 
www.lra4law.com/onlinehelp/fed/all/frci210z.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. AS LAST AMENDED 12/1/99. Table of Contents I.
Scope of Rules -- One Form of Action Rule 1 Scope and Purpose of Rules. ... 
www.gamb.uscourts.gov/fedr/frci210z.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages