L&J ASSETS v. PREHODA

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JULY 24, 2026

3. L&J ASSETS v. PREHODA, SC20050069

Motion to Extend Time for Service and Authorize Alternative Service

On May 18, 2026, Bag Fund, LLC (“Bag Fund”) filed the instant motion seeking a

court order to extend time to perform service of, and authorize alternative service for,

the Application for Renewal of Judgment (submitted October 16, 2025), which needs to

be personally served within 90 days of filing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

section 683.180, subdivision (b).

1.

Background

On November 4, 2005, plaintiff L&J Assets LLC (“plaintiff”) obtained a default

judgment against defendant Kenneth Prehoda (“defendant”) in the amount of

$56,159.94. On February 26, 2007, plaintiff recorded an abstract of judgment in El

Dorado County, thereby creating a lien on all of defendant’s real property located within

the county. (See, Code Civ. Proc., § 674; Industrial Indem. Co. v. Levine (1975) 49

Cal.App.3d 698, 713 [recordation of abstract of judgment creates a lien on real property

of the judgment debtor located in county where abstract of judgment is recorded].) It

appears that, at the time the abstract of judgment was recorded, defendant owned the

real property located at 1048 Trout Creek in South Lake Tahoe, California (the

“Property”).

In 2008, plaintiff assigned the judgment to Bag Fund. In 2013, defendant recorded a

transfer of the Property to his daughter (Bona Prehoda a/k/a Bona Gail a/k/a Bona Gail Hebert). On October 19, 2015, Bag Fund renewed the judgment for 10 years.

In 2018, defendant’s daughter recorded a transfer of the Property to Mark Babo and

Doreen Babo.

On October 16, 2025, Bag Fund filed another Application for Renewal of Judgment.1

1 On January 30, 2026, the court granted Bag Fund’s motion for a nunc pro tunc order

deeming its Application for Renewal of Judgment to be recorded in the El Dorado County Recorder’s Office as of October 19, 2025.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JULY 24, 2026

2. Legal Principles

“A judgment lien on real property is effective only during the period of enforceability

of the judgment. [Citations.] Like the judgment, the judgment lien can also be extended

by 10 years if renewed. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 683.180, subd. (a); § 697.310, subd. (b).)”

(Starcevic v. Pentech Financial Services, Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 365, 375.) In order to

maintain the lien priority, the judgment creditor must comply with Code of Civil

Procedure section 683.180. “Once renewed, ‘[t]he priority of the judgment lien on an

interest in real property remains the same.’ [Citations.]” (Starcevic, supra, at p. 375.) As provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 683.180, subdivision (b),2 if the

interest in real property has been transferred subject to the lien and the transfer has

been recorded, an extension pursuant to this section extends the lien on the property in

the hands of the transferee only if the transferee is served notice of the renewal and

proof of service is filed within the prescribed time. “[T]he obvious purpose of [Code of

Civil Procedure] section 683.180 is to provide notice to third persons that a judgment

lien has been extended. [Citation.]” (Beneficial Financial, Inc. v. Durkee (1988) 206

Cal.App.3d 912, 917.)

3.

Discussion

Based on a filing date of October 16, 2025, Code of Civil Procedure section 683.180

required Bag Fund to personally serve a copy of the Application for Renewal upon the

transferees, Mark Babo and Doreen Babo, on or before January 14, 2026. Bag Fund claims that, despite diligent efforts, it has been unable to personally serve the Babos.

(See, Clark Decl., ¶¶ 4–11 & Exs. A, B.) As such, Bag Fund seeks to extend the time to

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 683.180, subdivision (b) provides: “A judgment lien on

an interest in real property that has been transferred subject to the lien is not extended pursuant to subdivision (a) if the transfer was recorded before the application for renewal was filed unless both of the following requirements are satisfied: [¶] (1) A copy of the application for renewal is personally served on the transferee. [¶] (2) Proof of such service is filed with the court clerk within 90 days after the filing of the application for renewal.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.310, subd. (b).)

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JULY 24, 2026

serve the Babos and obtain the court’s authorization to serve the Babos by publication

or mail.

The court has reviewed the declarations of diligence submitted by Bag Fund. The

declarations do not show that Bag Fund made any attempt to personally serve the

Babos before the January 14, 2026, deadline. The earliest attempt did not occur until

March 23, 2026. Thus, even if the court had the authority to extend the statutory

deadline (the court is not convinced it does), it would still deny Bag Funds requests

under the circumstances.

TENTATIVE RULING # 3: THE MOTION IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL

BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247), UNLESS A NOTICE

OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT

AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED.

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR

IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE

HEARING.