Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Notice of Levy; Motion to Tax and Strike Memorandum of Costs After Judgment; Motion for Order Allowing Installment Payments on Judgment
Although the parties participated in settlement negotiations, there is no evidence that the parties met and conferred via the statutorily required methods before Plaintiff filed the instant motion.
The hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings is continued to August 10, 2026 at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff is ordered to meet and confer via in person, phone, or videoconferencing with Defendant for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the claims to be raised in the motion. As part of the meet and confer process, Plaintiff shall identify the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claim. Defendant shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is not subject to judgment.
After meeting and conferring, Plaintiff shall have 10 days before the continued hearing date set above to do one of the following:
1) Vacate the hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings; 2) File with the court a declaration stating the parties have agreed that Plaintiff will file an amended pleading before the date set forth above; or 3) File with the Court a declaration stating the means by which the parties met and conferred and identifying the specific objections in the motion for judgment on the pleadings and supporting memorandum of points and authorities that the parties were unable to resolve. (C.C.P. § 439(a)(3).)
The Court will not accept further briefing.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME 1. MOTION TO QUASH WRIT OF EXECUTION AND NOTICE OF AUDIE MURPHY RANCH LEVY COMMUNITY CVSW2204278 2. MOTION FOR INSTALLMENT ASSOCIATION VS PAYMENTS MARSHALL 3. MOTION TO TAX COSTS
Tentative Ruling:
MOTION: Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Notice of Levy; Motion to Tax and Strike Memorandum of Costs After Judgment; Motion for Order Allowing Installment Payments on Judgment
Moving party: Defendant Deandra Marshall (pro per) Responding party: Plaintiff Audie Murphy Rancho Community Association
Motion filed: 2/25/26 Opposition filed: 3/10/26 Reply filed: 3/16/26 Supp. Opp: 5/29/26 Supp. Reply: 6/4/26
This is an HOA delinquent assessment collection case. Plaintiff Audie Murphy Ranch Community Association (“Association”) is located in Menifee, California. Defendant is the owner of real property located at 25469 Comanche Creek Drive, Menifee, California, which is located within the Association.
I. Motion to Quash Defendant asks the Court to quash the levy because it is based on “false balances.” Defendant cites
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant cites two cases in support of this motion. First, Defendant cites Cal- Western Reconveyance Corp. v. Reed (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1308, which dealt with the court’s order for the distribution of surplus funds to the county to satisfy one of the claimant’s spousal and child support payments and an equalization payment to the claimant’s former spouse. This case is not relevant to the instant motion. Second, Defendant cites Lucky United Properties, Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, which dealt with a motion to compel the judgment creditor to file a satisfaction of judgment. This case does not stand for the cited premise that a levy based on incorrect amounts is invalid. In fact, the word “levy” does not appear once in the opinion. Defendant has not provided any statutory or other authority to support granting the requested relief. Motion to Quash is DENIED.
II. Motion for Installment Payments on Judgment Defendant asks the court to order that she be permitted to make installment payments on the remaining balance of the Judgment pursuant to CCP §683.030. Defendant provides two proposed payment plans: (a) $1,500 down payment within ten days of order then $400/month until principal balance is satisfied; or (b) $500 per month until principal balance is satisfied.
In Opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendant incorrectly cites inapplicable statutory authority. CCP §683.030 reads: “If a money judgment is payable in installments, the 10- year period of enforceability prescribed by Section 683.020 runs as to each installment from the date the installment becomes due and runs as to costs from the date the costs are added to the judgment pursuant to Section 685.090.” Defendant’s recitation of this code section is incorrect.1
The court entered judgment for foreclosure and/or money damages against Defendant in the amount of $9,385.20. The court ordered the real property to be sold. (Judgment
1 Defendant says this section reads: “The court may order that the judgment be payable in installments in such amount and at such times as the court determines are just.” Defendant cites subsection “a” but CCP §683.030 does not have any subsections.
¶¶3-4.) The judgment does not indicate this is a money judgment payable in installments, which means section 686.030 does not apply. Defendant has not provided any authority that permits this court to amend the Judgment to restructure the ordered foreclosure or permit installment payments. Motion for installment payments is DENIED.
III. Motion to Tax Costs On March 2, 2023, the court entered judgment for foreclosure on the lien. On October 22, 2025, the Association filed and served a post-Judgment Memorandum of Costs adding $4,043.75 in attorney fees and $4,500 in costs and $2,295.01 in interest to the Judgment. On November 8, 2025, the court issued a writ of sale pursuant to the terms of the Judgment. On November 24, 2025, the Association instructed the Sheriff to proceed with a sale of the property pursuant to the Judgment. On January 8, 2026, Defendant filed an ex parte application to stay enforcement of the Judgment and quash the notice of levy. On February 24, 2026, the court denied Defendant’s ex parte application. Also on February 24, 2026, the Association filed and served its second post-Judgment Memorandum of Costs adding $6,217.50 in attorney fees to the Judgment.
Defendant also moves for an order taxing and disallowing the attorney fees and costs claimed in Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs After Judgment filed on February 4, 2026. Defendant argues the claimed attorney fees of $6,217.50 are excessive and unsupported, that Plaintiff’s accounting of the judgment principal is internally inconsistent and fails to properly credit payments acknowledged by Plaintiff, and that the Court cannot determine the reasonableness or necessity of the claimed fees based on the record presented. Defendant argues Plaintiff has not provided any itemized billing statements supporting the attorney fee award.
Plaintiff argues its post-judgment fees are allowable costs properly claimed through a post-judgment cost memorandum pursuant to CCP §685.040 and §685.070(a)(6) and (b). CCP § 685.040 provides:
The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included in costs collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by law. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.
(emphasis added.)2 The statute imposes just two requirements before attorney fees may be awarded as costs: (1) the fees must have been incurred to “enforce a judgment”; and (2) the underlying judgment must have included an award for attorney fees pursuant to the statute providing that attorney fees may be recovered as costs when authorized by contract. (Cardinale v. Miller (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1025.) Both requirements are met as Plaintiff’s actions were taken in an effort to enforce the Judgment and the 2 CCP §§ 685.070 and 685.080 allow a judgment creditor to pursue two alternative means of claiming post-judgment costs, including fees, incurred in enforcing a judgment: (1) by a memorandum of costs (§ 685.070) or (2) by a noticed motion (§ 685.080).
Judgment includes an award for attorney fees pursuant to stipulation between the parties. (See Judgment ¶3.)
Plaintiff then argues the fees requested are reasonable and should be allowed in full. The Opposition is accompanied by the declaration of attorney Daniel Medioni, which includes a description of the work performed to enforce the Judgment between October 7, 2025 and February 24, 2026. (Medioni Decl. ¶¶24-25, Ex. 9.) Counsel incurred fees totaling $7,856.25 but only claimed $6,217.50 on the Memorandum of Costs. This amount represents 15.25 hours of time spent by counsel at an hourly rate of $495.
Most of this work came from Plaintiff responding to and defending against Defendant’s ex parte application to stay enforcement proceedings in January and February 2026. This included two hearings on the ex parte, which incurred a substantial amount of the requested fees. Counsel explains between October 24, 2025, and February 24, 2026, Defendant sent him 25 emails that he reviewed and responded to. Counsel notes he did not bill for time reviewing and responding to the vast majority of these emails. (Medioni Decl. ¶23.)
The information provided by Plaintiff in Opposition to the motion indicates the attorney fees requested as part of the Memorandum of Costs are reasonable and not excessive. Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED.