Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Sundance Financial, Inc.
Before: McINTYRE
Opinion
McINTYRE, J.
In this appeal we address the question of when the 10-year statute of limitations begins to run on an action to renew a stipulated judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337.5, subd. (3), all statutory references are to this code unless otherwise specified.) We conclude that the
[624]
limitations period begins to run when the trial court enters the stipulated judgment, unless the parties agreed to the judgment for the purpose of facilitating an appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of this action because it was filed more than 10 years after entry of the stipulated judgment and there is no indication that the parties agreed to the judgment to facilitate an appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Union Bank and Pacific Scene, Inc. (Pacific Scene), entered into a stipulated judgment on April 18, 1996, which awarded $508,475.74 to Union Bank. The Cadle Company II, Inc. (Cadle), later acquired all right, title, and interest to the judgment. On May 8, 2006, Cadle filed the instant complaint against Pacific Scene and Sundance Financial, Inc. (together Sundance), Pacific Scene’s alleged successor in interest. Sundance demurred to the complaint, arguing that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer, we independently review the moving and opposition papers in order to determine whether the judgment was proper.
(Sacramento Brewing Co. v. Desmond, Miller & Desmond
(1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1085 [89 Cal.Rptr.2d 760].) We make this determination without any deference to the trial court.
DISCUSSION
A lawsuit to renew a judgment is subject to a 10-year statute of limitations period. (§ 337.5, subd. (3).) This 10-year period does not ordinarily commence with the entry of judgment, but rather when the judgment becomes final, i.e., after the determination of an appeal, or, if no appeal is filed, after the time in which an appeal could have been filed.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)