Young v. Hessler

FOX, J. pro tem.

This is an action for partition of real property. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying her any relief and enjoining her from asserting any claim to said property.

Plaintiff purchased an account against Fred Hessler and brought an action thereon against him in the Municipal Court of the City of Los Angeles. A default judgment was entered on July 12, 1941. On that same day plaintiff caused to be recorded in the office of the county recorder of Los Angeles County an abstract of said judgment certified by the clerk of said court, thereby creating a judgment lien on his interest in the premises here in question which were owned by him and his wife, Hazel, as joint tenants, and on which they resided. On March 20, 1942, Hazel filed a declaration of homestead on said property. On April 22, 1942, plaintiff had an execution issued out of the municipal court on said judgment and pursuant thereto the marshal of said court sold to plaintiff on May 28, 1942, all the right, title and interest of Fred Hessler in and to the real property involved in this action, which property, however, was subject to a trust deed encumbrance in the approximate amount of $2,500. On said last date the marshal executed and delivered to plaintiff herein a certificate of sale to said real property. The interest sold to Young not having been redeemed, the marshal, on June 9, 1943, executed and delivered to plaintiff a marshal’s deed to the said property.

The municipal court judgment against Fred Hessler was regular on its face, and upon the recording of an abstract thereof with the county recorder it became a lien upon all the

[69]

real property (not exempt from execution) in the county which Fred Hessler owned, including his interest in the lot here involved. (Code Civ. Proc., § 674.) Such lien on the interest of Fred Hessler was therefore prior to the homestead declaration of his wife, Hazel, upon his interest since she did not file her declaration of homestead for record until March 20, 1942.

(Smith

v.

Bangham,

156 Cal. 359 [104 P. 689, 28 L.RA.N.S. 522].) Fred Hessler’s interest was therefore subject to execution sale in satisfaction of the judgment by the express terms of section 1241, subdivision 1, Civil Code, and the title of plaintiff related back to July 12, 1941, when the abstract of the municipal court judgment was recorded.