Russell v. Litzinger CA4/3

Filed 2/28/13 Russell v. Litzinger 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BRENDA RUSSELL et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, G046866

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00509803)

JEANNIE LITZINGER et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenda Sanders, Judge, and Hugh Michael Brenner, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Theodore C. Beall for Defendants and Appellants. Gerard W. O’Brien for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

* * *

Defendants and appellants Jeannie Litzinger and Carlton Fontain appeal from a judgment entered in California pursuant to the Sister State Money-Judgment Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.10 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code) (Act) to domesticate an Illinois judgment against them in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Brenda Russell and Martin V. Harrington II. They contend the trial court erred in finding the statute of limitations had been tolled because the tolling statute did not apply. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1994 plaintiffs obtained a judgment in Illinois against defendants in the sum of just over $430,000 and collected about $335,000. In 2011 defendants inherited property, collectively totaling approximately $40,000. The estate is being probated in Los Angeles. In September 2011 plaintiffs filed an application to domesticate the Illinois judgment in California for the purpose of levying on the probate assets. The court granted it and entered judgment in the sum of slightly more than $110,000 against defendants. Defendants filed a motion to vacate the judgment on the grounds it was barred by the statute of limitations. The court denied the motion on the ground the statute of limitations was tolled because defendants did not reside in nor had they “‘entered’ or ‘returned’ to California.” Although not supported by evidence in the record, none of the parties dispute that defendants have never lived in or even visited California. The court subsequently denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration.