Cummins v. Aero-Tech Services CA4/3

Filed 12/14/21 Cummins v. Aero-Tech Services CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

KENNETH J. CUMMINS, as successor trustee etc., G059085

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00723072)

v. OPINION

AERO-TECH SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Layne H. Melzer, Judge. Affirmed. Winters Law Firm and Dennis Winters for Defendant and Appellant. Bidna & Keys, Richard D. Keys, Howard M. Bidna and Jordan M. Lane for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Aero-Tech Services, Inc., (Aero-Tech) appeals from the judgment in favor of Kenneth J. Cummins as the successor trustee (hereafter Trustee) of the Krug Family Trust. The judgment renewed for another ten years an earlier judgment that Helen Krug obtained in July 2004 against Aero-Tech for reneging on her right to receive payment under a “salary continuation plan” that her late husband, Henry Krug, negotiated as part 1 of his retirement from Aero-Tech. In September 2004, Helen assigned the judgment to her revocable living trust. The trial court in this matter found that Cummins, as the trustee, in May 2014 timely filed a “suit on the judgment” to renew the judgment before it otherwise would have expired 10 years from the date it was originally entered. As an earlier bench officer explained in his June 2015 ruling denying Aero-Tech’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, an “action on the judgment”—as the Trustee here filed—is a valid method to renew a judgment within 10 years after it was entered. Indeed, it is 2 specifically authorized by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.050.) As we explain more fully below, we find no merit in this or any of Aero-Tech’s challenges to the Trustee’s renewal of the judgment, and we therefore affirm the renewed judgment.