Long v. Cuttle Construction Co.

Opinion

BLEASE, J.

This is an appeal from an order after judgment denying the motion of defendant judgment debtor Cuttle Construction Company (Cuttle) for an order to enter a satisfaction of judgment.

[836]

Cuttle sent checks to plaintiffs’ counsel to defray the judgment debt. They were deposited in counsel’s bank but the bank placed a five-day hold on their payment.

The trial court denied the motion on the ground the interest continued to run on the judgment during the period of the five-day hold. Cuttle contends the trial court erred because interest ceased to accrue on the day that the checks were delivered.

The contention has merit and we will direct the entry of a satisfaction of the judgment.

Facts and Procedural Background

After an unsuccessful appeal of the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Michael and Sandra Long, Cuttle sent checks, aggregating $1,859,564.10, to the Longs’ attorney. He received the checks on October 17, 1995. He deposited them at his bank in his client trust account. The bank informed him that because of the size of the checks there would be a five-day hold placed on them.

Thereafter, Cuttle demanded, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050, that the Longs acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment. They did not comply with the demand. Cuttle moved for an order directing the clerk to enter satisfaction of the judgment.

The Longs opposed the motion on the ground that under California Uniform Commercial Code section 3310 the judgment debt was not paid until the checks were cleared for payment by the bank and that interest on the judgment continued to accrue until that time. They reasoned that the judgment was not satisfied until the interim interest, amounting to $5,661.79, was paid.

The trial court denied the motion for the reasons tendered by the Longs.

Discussion

Cuttle contends the trial court erred in concluding that interest continued to run on the judgment after the date the checks were delivered to the Longs.