Nash v. Aprea ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/3/23
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    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    not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION SEVEN
    THOMAS NASH et al.,                                         B322796
    Plaintiffs and                                         (Los Angeles County
    Respondents,                                                Super. Ct. No. 21STCV28570)
    v.
    NINON APREA,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, Armen Tamzarian, Judge. Affirmed.
    Sigelman Law Corp. and Paul Sigelman for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Linzer Law Group and Kenneth A. Linzer for Plaintiffs and
    Respondents.
    _________________________
    Thomas Nash and Bo O’Connor sued Ninon Aprea for
    breach of contract in connection with their rental of Aprea’s
    home. Aprea failed to file an answer, and the trial court entered
    a default judgment for $59,191. The judgment included $1,000 in
    attorneys’ fees pursuant to a provision in the parties’ lease
    agreement authorizing attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party not
    to exceed $1,000. Aprea appealed, and we affirmed. (Nash v.
    Aprea (Mar. 13, 2023, No. B319309) [nonpub. opn.].)
    While the appeal was pending, the trial court granted in
    part Nash and O’Connor’s motion under Code of Civil Procedure1
    section 685.080, subdivision (a), for an order allowing their costs
    of enforcing the judgment. The court awarded $27,721 in
    attorneys’ fees under section 685.040, which allows as an award
    of costs attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing a judgment “if the
    underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the
    judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
    paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.”
    Section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A), in turn, provides that
    attorneys’ fees may be awarded as costs where authorized by
    contract.
    In this appeal, Aprea contends the trial court erred in
    awarding over $1,000 in attorneys’ fees for enforcing the
    judgment because the lease authorized attorneys’ fees “not to
    exceed $1,000.” However, once the judgment was entered, the
    terms of the lease, including the $1,000 limitation on fees, were
    merged into and extinguished by the judgment. Because the
    judgment included an award of attorneys’ fees authorized by
    1     Further undesignated statutory references are to the Code
    of Civil Procedure.
    2
    contract, section 685.040 allowed an award of reasonable
    attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing the judgment. We affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    A.     The Lawsuit and Judgment
    Nash and O’Connor filed this lawsuit against Aprea in
    August 2021. Their complaint alleged causes of action for breach
    of written contract, breach of oral contract, breach of the
    covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and bad faith retention of
    a security deposit in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5. As
    alleged, Nash and O’Connor entered into a written residential
    lease agreement (lease) with Aprea to rent her Los Angeles home
    for six months beginning in August 2020 for $8,000 per month,
    and they paid her $64,000 ($48,000 in rent plus a $16,000
    security deposit). During their tenancy they discovered mold on
    the premises, and they reached an agreement with Aprea to
    receive an $8,000 credit. However, after they vacated the home
    in February 2021, Aprea did not pay the credit, return their
    security deposit, or identify claimed deductions from the deposit.
    Nor did Aprea respond to a June 2021 demand letter seeking the
    credit and deposit.
    The complaint attached and incorporated the lease.
    Paragraph 36 of the lease, which utilized a form published by the
    California Association of Realtors, was titled “Attorney Fees” and
    stated, “In any action or proceeding arising out of this
    Agreement, the prevailing party between Landlord and Tenant
    shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs, collectively
    not to exceed $1,000 . . . .” Nash and O’Connor’s prayer for relief
    sought compensatory damages of at least $24,000, statutory
    3
    damages under Civil Code section 1950.5, prejudgment interest,
    reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs.
    On September 2, 2021 Nash and O’Connor filed a proof of
    service of the summons and complaint by substituted service at
    Aprea’s house. Aprea did not file an answer, and Nash and
    O’Connor filed a request for entry of default, which the court
    clerk entered on September 22. Nash and O’Connor
    subsequently filed a request for entry of default judgment in the
    amount of $59,191, comprising $56,000 in damages, $1,533 in
    prejudgment interest, $1,000 in attorneys’ fees, and $658 in costs.
    In a supporting declaration, Nash and O’Connor’s attorney stated
    the $1,000 requested in attorneys’ fees was “as provided for and
    fixed by paragraph 36 of the Lease.” On November 10, 2021 the
    trial court entered a default judgment against Aprea for $59,191,
    including $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and $658 in costs.2
    On November 29, 2021 Aprea filed a motion to vacate entry
    of default and default judgment. The trial court denied the
    motion, and a later motion for reconsideration, finding service
    was proper and Aprea had actual notice in time to defend the
    action. On April 8, 2022 Aprea appealed from the judgment and
    the order denying her motion for reconsideration; we affirmed in
    Nash v. Aprea, supra, No. B319309.
    2     Because paragraph 36 of the lease limited attorneys’ fees
    and costs collectively to $1,000, the award of $1,000 in fees plus
    $658 in costs exceeded the contractual limit. However, Aprea did
    not challenge the award in her appeal from the judgment.
    4
    B.     The Motion for Order Allowing Costs of Enforcing the
    Judgment
    On May 20, 2022 Nash and O’Connor filed a motion for an
    order allowing their costs of enforcing the judgment pursuant to
    sections 685.040 and 685.080 (cost motion). They argued Aprea
    had failed to satisfy the judgment, refused reasonable settlement
    offers, and filed unsuccessful motions to vacate the judgment,
    causing them “to undertake substantial post-judgment efforts in
    enforcing the judgment and collecting the amount owed.”
    (Capitalization omitted.) The cost motion listed several cost
    items recoverable under the Enforcement of Judgments Law
    (EJL; § 680.010 et seq.), including fees related to the issuance
    and recording of the abstract of judgment, issuance of a writ of
    execution, notice of a judgment lien, and filing fees and expenses,
    totaling less than $500. The motion also sought postjudgment
    interest of $3,534.
    The lion’s share of the requested costs was for $58,068 in
    attorneys’ fees that had been or were expected to be incurred in
    postjudgment litigation. Nash and O’Connor argued the fees
    were allowable as costs under section 685.040 because the default
    judgment included an award of attorneys’ fees authorized by the
    lease, but the $1,000 cap on fees in the lease did not limit the
    award because the judgment extinguished the lease. The motion
    utilized a lodestar analysis, multiplying the attorneys’ rates by
    the hours the attorneys claimed had been expended to enforce the
    judgment.3
    3    The declaration of Nash and O’Connor’s attorney filed in
    support of the motion is not part of the record on appeal.
    However, Apria does not challenge the amount of the fees
    5
    In her opposition and supplemental memorandum, Aprea
    argued (as she does on appeal) that because section 685.040
    authorizes attorneys’ fees for enforcement only if the underlying
    judgment includes attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 1033.5,
    subdivision (a)(10)(A), which in turn only allows recovery of
    attorneys’ fees as costs when authorized by contract, Nash and
    O’Connor were not entitled to any additional fees for enforcement
    of the judgment because the lease limited attorneys’ fees to
    $1,000. Thus, Aprea argued, the statutory scheme “trumps [the]
    merger doctrine” and “does not authorize collections above the
    $1,000 limit incorporated by reference.”
    After a hearing, on June 16, 2022, the trial court granted
    the cost motion in part. The court allowed the cost items relating
    to the abstract of judgment, judgment lien, writ of execution, and
    filing fees, totaling $481, but denied the request for postjudgment
    interest. The court found that Nash and O’Connor were entitled
    to attorneys’ fees, but most of the claimed fees were incurred in
    opposing Aprea’s motions to vacate and for reconsideration, not to
    enforce the judgment. The court allowed Nash and O’Connor to
    recover $27,240 in attorneys’ fees for the time spent litigating the
    cost motion.
    The trial court rejected Aprea’s argument that the $1,000
    fee limitation in the lease barred Nash and O’Connor from
    recovering additional attorneys’ fees. The court relied on the
    holding in Globalist Internet Technologies, Inc. v. Reda (2008)
    
    167 Cal.App.4th 1267
    , 1273-1274 (Globalist) that a plaintiff’s
    right to postjudgment fees is based on an award of fees in the
    awarded on appeal, arguing only that the $1,000 limit should
    have applied.
    6
    judgment, not the original contract. Therefore, the trial court
    held, “the contract’s $1,000 limit does not apply to judgment
    creditors’ fees incurred enforcing the judgment. The judgment
    includes some amount of contractual attorney fees, [and]
    therefore judgment creditors may recover attorney fees as costs
    under CCP § 685.040.”
    On July 25, 2022 the trial court entered an amended
    judgment for $86,912, combining the amount of the original
    judgment ($59,191) plus the $27,721 in enforcement costs allowed
    in the June 16, 2022 order. Aprea timely appealed.4
    DISCUSSION
    A.    Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees as Enforcement of Judgment
    Costs Under Section 685.040
    Section 685.040 states, “The judgment creditor is entitled
    to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.
    Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included
    in costs collectible under this title [the EJL] unless otherwise
    provided by law. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a
    4     Aprea’s August 12, 2022 notice of appeal states she is
    appealing from the trial court’s June 16, 2022 order as a
    postjudgment order appealable under section 904.1,
    subdivision (a)(2). Because the July 25 amended judgment
    incorporated the amount of costs awarded in the June 16 order,
    we liberally construe Aprea’s appeal as one taken from the
    amended judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).)
    However, we do not consider the documents included in the
    parties’ appendices relating to motions for additional costs of
    enforcement filed after Aprea’s notice of appeal, including Nash
    and O’Connor’s request for a second amended judgment.
    7
    judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the
    underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the
    judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
    paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.”
    Section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A), provides, “The following
    items are allowable as costs under Section 1032 . . . [¶] . . .
    Attorney’s fees, when authorized by . . . [¶] . . . Contract.”
    “Thus, there are two requirements before a motion for an
    award of postjudgment attorney fees may be awarded as costs:
    (1) the fees must have been incurred to ‘enforce’ a judgment; and
    (2) the underlying judgment had to include an award for attorney
    fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5,
    subdivision (a)(10)(A), which provides that attorney fees may be
    awarded when authorized by contract.” (Jaffe v. Pacelli (2008)
    
    165 Cal.App.4th 927
    , 935 (Jaffe); accord, Guo v. Moorpark
    Recovery Service, LLC (2021) 
    60 Cal.App.5th 745
    , 750 (Guo);
    Cardinale v. Miller (2014) 
    222 Cal.App.4th 1020
    , 1025
    (Cardinale); Globalist, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1275.)
    “[T]he award of postjudgment attorney fees is not based on
    the survival of the contract, but is instead based on the award of
    attorney fees and costs in the trial judgment. [Citation.] This is
    in accord with the extinction by merger analysis providing that
    postjudgment rights are governed by the rights in the judgment
    and not by any rights arising from the contract.” (Jaffe, supra,
    165 Cal.App.4th at p. 935; accord, Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC
    Acquisitions, Inc. (2015) 
    233 Cal.App.4th 882
    , 890 (Gray1);
    Cardinale, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1026; Globalist, supra,
    167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1273-1274.) As the Jaffee court explained,
    “[W]hen a judgment is rendered on a case involving a contract
    that includes an attorney fees and costs provision, the ‘judgment
    8
    extinguishes all further contractual rights, including the
    contractual attorney fees clause.’” (Jaffe, at p. 934; accord,
    Cardinale, at p. 1026.) Accordingly, “we look to the judgment
    rather than the contract itself when determining a party’s
    entitlement to fees.” (Guo, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 751.)5
    Under section 685.080, a judgment creditor may claim costs
    of enforcement, including allowable attorneys’ fees, by filing and
    serving on the judgment debtor a motion describing the claimed
    costs, supported by an affidavit of a knowledgeable person, upon
    which the court must make “an order allowing or disallowing the
    costs to the extent justified under the circumstances of the case.”
    (§ 685.080, subd. (c).)6
    5      In 1992 the Legislature added the last sentence of
    section 685.040 (providing for attorneys’ fees in enforcing a
    judgment) to abrogate the holding in Chelios v. Kaye (1990)
    
    219 Cal.App.3d 75
     that under the merger doctrine, “the statute
    did not authorize awarding a judgment creditor attorney fees for
    enforcement despite an underlying judgment allowing such fees
    pursuant to a contract provision.” (Conservatorship of McQueen
    (2014) 
    59 Cal.4th 602
    , 609; accord, Gray1, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th
    at p. 890.) Notably, “[t]he amendment did not abrogate Chelios’s
    holding that contractual rights merge into the judgment. Rather,
    the amendment provided for the inclusion of postjudgment
    attorney fees as costs when the contract provided for attorney
    fees and attorney fees were initially included in the judgment.”
    (Gray1, at p. 890.)
    6      A judgment creditor may alternatively claim the costs of
    enforcement by filing and serving a memorandum of costs, in
    which case the judgment debtor must timely file a motion to tax
    costs. (§ 685.070, subds. (a)-(d).) Nash and O’Connor filed both a
    memorandum of costs and their cost motion. Although Aprea did
    not file a motion to tax costs in response to the memorandum of
    costs, the trial court found “[i]t would be unfair and unnecessary
    9
    Although we generally review an award of attorneys’ fees
    for an abuse of discretion (Guo, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 749;
    Jaffe, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 934), where, as here, “‘the
    issue is whether the trial court had the authority pursuant to
    section 685.040 to issue such an award,’” we review the legal
    issue de novo. (Guo, at pp. 749-750; accord, Jaffe, at p. 934.)
    B.     The Trial Court Did Not Err in Allowing Attorneys’ Fees as
    Enforcement Costs
    The trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees met both
    requirements for allowing postjudgment attorneys’ fees under
    section 685.040, as set forth Jaffe, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at
    page 935 and its progeny. As to the first requirement, Aprea does
    not dispute that the $27,240 in attorneys’ fees awarded by the
    trial court—which included only those fees incurred in connection
    with litigating the cost motion—were fees “incurred to ‘enforce’ a
    judgment.” With respect to the second requirement that “the
    underlying judgment had to include an award for attorney fees
    pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5,
    subdivision (a)(10)(A)” (Jaffe, at p. 935), Aprea argues the
    attorneys’ fees included in the judgment were not authorized by
    contract because the judgment (on Judicial Council form JUD-
    100) did not mention the lease, and the complaint likewise only
    sought reasonable attorneys’ fees without mentioning the lease.
    However, the lease was attached to the complaint, and Nash and
    O’Connor’s motion for entry of default judgment likewise
    attached the lease and stated in a supporting declaration that the
    requested $1,000 in attorneys’ fees was “as provided for and fixed
    to require [Apria] to file both a motion to tax costs and oppose the
    motion to fix costs.” Nash and O’Connor do not argue otherwise.
    10
    by paragraph 36 of the Lease.” Accordingly, the trial court’s
    award of $1,000 in attorneys’ fees in the default judgment was an
    award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 1033.5,
    subdivision (a)(10)(A).
    Aprea contends that because section 1033.5,
    subdivision (a)(10)(A), only allows attorneys’ fees when
    authorized by contract, and the lease only authorized fees not to
    exceed $1,000, this limited authorization was necessarily
    incorporated into an award allowed in enforcement proceedings
    pursuant to section 685.040. Apria’s argument has superficial
    appeal: If Nash and O’Connor were authorized as prevailing
    parties in the underlying action to recover only $1,000 in
    attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A),
    why can they now recover almost 30 times as much as judgment
    creditors in enforcing the judgment based on section 685.040,
    which expressly references section 1033.5?
    The answer lies in the statutory language—as discussed,
    section 685.040 provides that attorneys’ fees are allowed “if the
    underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the
    judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph
    (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.” Thus, there need only
    be an award of contractually authorized fees to open the door to
    recovery of postjudgment fees as enforcement costs. We decline
    Aprea’s invitation to read into section 685.040 an additional
    requirement that there not only be an award of attorneys’ fees in
    the judgment “pursuant to” section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A)
    (that is, the judgment awarded fees based on an attorneys’ fees
    provision in a contract), but that any enforcement fees also be
    expressly authorized by the underlying contract. (See McHugh v.
    Protective Life Ins. Co. (2021) 
    12 Cal.5th 213
    , 227 [When
    11
    interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the words of the
    statutes, as statutory language is generally the most reliable
    indicator of legislation’s intended purpose. [Citation.] We
    consider the ordinary meaning of the relevant terms, related
    provisions, terms used in other parts of the statute, and the
    structure of the statutory scheme.”].)
    Our interpretation of the language in section 685.040 is
    consistent with the merger doctrine, which recognizes that
    “[u]pon entry of judgment, all further contractual rights are
    extinguished, and the plaintiff’s rights”—and in this case, the
    limitation on plaintiff’s rights—“are thereafter governed by the
    rights on the judgment, not by any rights which might have been
    held to have arisen from the contract.” (Tomaselli v.
    Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 
    25 Cal.App.4th 1766
    , 1770; accord,
    Guo, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 751; Globalist, supra,
    167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274; Jaffe, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at
    p. 935.) As discussed, the Legislature in drafting the current
    version of section 685.040 did not intend to abrogate the merger
    doctrine, but rather, to ensure that a judgment creditor could
    obtain attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing a judgment
    notwithstanding termination of their contractual rights by
    merger into the judgment. (Conservatorship of McQueen (2014)
    
    59 Cal.4th 602
    , 609-610; Gray1, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at
    p. 890.)7 The Legislature could easily have specified that
    7     Apria relies on language in a Senate Judiciary Committee
    report in connection with the 1992 amendments to
    section 685.040 that stated “the proposed amendment would
    ‘assure that contract provisions which provide for attorneys’ fee[s]
    are enforceable regardless of whether they are incurred in
    enforcing the judgment or in an appeal of the judgment.’”
    (Conservatorship of McQueen, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 610,
    12
    contractual limitations on attorneys’ fees apply in enforcement
    proceedings. It did not.
    Although Apria is correct that most appellate courts that
    have considered section 685.040 have not addressed whether
    contractual limits on attorneys’ fees survive merger, we find
    persuasive the reasoning in Cardinale, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th
    pages 1025 to 1026. There, Noreen Cardinale won a money
    judgment against Daniel Miller based on breach of contract,
    fraud, and other claims arising from an abusive loan scheme. (Id.
    at pp. 1022-1024.) The judgment against Miller included an
    award of contractual attorneys’ fees. (Id. at p. 1025, fn. 8.)
    Cardinale subsequently sued Miller and the brokers who engaged
    in a refinancing scheme with him for fraudulent transfer and
    conspiracy, alleging they conspired to prevent satisfaction of
    Cardinale’s judgment. Cardinale prevailed at trial, and the trial
    court awarded nearly $300,000 in attorneys’ fees against the
    brokers under section 685.040. (Id. at p. 1025.)
    quoting Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2616
    (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 12, 1992, p. 5.) Apria
    argues this language shows the merger doctrine did not remove
    the contractual limit on attorneys’ fees. However, as the
    Supreme Court explained in McQueen, the legislative purpose of
    the amendment was to ensure the availability of attorneys’ fees
    arising from a contract at the enforcement phase despite the
    merger doctrine (not to preserve the specific terms of the
    contract). (See McQueen, at pp. 609-610 [the “committee report
    noted that the contrast between the Chelios result—contractually
    authorized fees could not be recovered for enforcement of the
    judgment—and the settled rule that such fees could be recovered
    in an appeal”].)
    13
    The Court of Appeal affirmed the attorneys’ fees award,
    concluding as to the brokers that although they were not parties
    to the underlying contract, the two requirements for an award of
    postjudgment attorneys’ fees articulated by Jaffe, supra,
    165 Cal.App.4th at page 935 had been met. (Cardinale, supra,
    222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1025.) The court explained, “While in the
    usual scheme of things the target of a fee motion under
    section 685.040 is presumably the original judgment debtor, the
    Legislature did not so restrict the provision’s scope.” (Id. at
    p. 1025.) The court continued, “Nor is it critical here that the
    [brokers] were not parties to the contractual fee provision
    between Miller and Cardinale. As Jaffe explains, ‘[g]enerally,
    when a judgment is rendered in a case involving a contract that
    includes an attorney fees and costs provision, the “judgment
    extinguishes all further contractual rights, including the
    contractual attorney fees clause.”’ [Citation.] . . . [The brokers’]
    status as strangers to Cardinale’s contract with Miller does not
    immunize them from liability under section 685.040.” (Id. at
    p. 1026.)
    Although we have reservations whether section 685.040
    supports an attorneys’ fees award against a nonparty to a
    contract, that question is not before us. But we agree with
    Cardinale’s reasoning that under the merger doctrine the specific
    limitations of the contract (including the $1,000 limit here) no
    longer apply once the judgment is entered, and instead, the
    operative question in considering whether fees are available as
    enforcement costs under section 685.040 is simply whether the
    judgment included attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to a contract
    because the “‘“judgment extinguishes all further contractual
    14
    rights, including the contractual attorney fees clause.”’”
    (Cardinale, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1026.)8
    DISPOSITION
    The amended judgment is affirmed. Nash and O’Connor
    are to recover their costs on appeal.
    FEUER, J.
    We concur:
    PERLUSS, P. J.                 SEGAL, J.
    8      Aprea’s argument that claim preclusion bars Nash and
    O’Connor from recovering additional attorneys’ fees without
    “‘actual litigation’” of their right to recover attorneys’ fees over
    $1,000 fails to address the law under section 685.040 that prior
    contract terms are merged into the judgment. Aprea’s reliance on
    Sukut Construction, Inc. v. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Land Trust
    (1979) 
    95 Cal.App.3d 527
    , 529-531 to support her argument is
    misplaced. In Sukut, the Court of Appeal concluded that claim
    preclusion applied to bar the plaintiff’s action to foreclose a
    mechanic’s lien against parcels of property because the claim was
    “encompassed” by a prior foreclosure action. (Id. at p. 531.)
    Sukot involved only claim preclusion (that the action to enforce
    the lien reasserted a right litigated in a prior action), not the
    EJL. Apria’s final argument that Nash and O’Connor waived
    their right to attorneys’ fees over $1,000 fares no better, simply
    recycling her argument the lease survives the judgment.
    15
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B322796

Filed Date: 10/3/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/3/2023