BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
AB 2126 A
Assembly Member Lieu B
As Amended April 20, 2006
Hearing Date: June 13, 2006 2
Code of Civil Procedure 1
BCP:rm 2
6
SUBJECT
Enforcement of Judgments
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide that enforcement of a money
judgment or judgment for possession or sale of property
under the Family Code would be enforceable until satisfied
in full. Additionally, this bill would allow a court in
limited civil cases to enforce orders under the Family
Code.
BACKGROUND
Historically, different judgments under the Family Code
were subject to different periods of enforceability.
Certain judgments are subject to a ten-year enforcement
period, renewal and exemptions from the defense of laches.
Thus, family law litigants may receive similar judgments
with different enforcement periods.
In 2005, the California Law Revision Commission, sponsor,
produced a detailed report recommending the language in the
present bill. That report thoroughly reviewed existing
law, in light of the lack of representation for most family
law litigants, and concluded that a uniform rule for
judgments under the Family Code would best serve all
parties. The proposed language, with minor changes to the
Judicial Council provision, appears in AB 2126.
The report additionally suggested a change to the type of
(more)
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 2
relief that may be granted in a limited civil case.
Traditionally, courts were separated into superior and
municipal courts. In 1998, voters passed SCA 4
(Proposition 220), that allowed voluntary unification of
superior and municipal courts in California. All of
California's 58 counties have unified their superior and
municipal courts. As a remnant of municipal courts,
limited civil cases allow relief up to $25,000 for matters
previously subject to municipal court jurisdiction. [Code
of Civ. Proc. 85.] Historically, municipal courts could
not enforce orders under the Family Code. The exclusion of
enforcement of those orders is continued in existing
limited civil case provisions. The California Law Revision
Commission's report recommended that enforcement of orders
under the Family Code be allowed in limited civil cases to
facilitate enforcement. AB 2126 would allow limited civil
cases to enter orders enforcing those orders.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law provides that a judgment or order for
possession or sale of property under the Family Code is
subject to a ten-year enforcement period. [Fam. Code
291; Code of Civ. Proc. 683.020.]
Existing law provides that a judgment for child, family,
or spousal support is enforceable until paid in full and
exempt from any requirement that judgments be renewed.
Those judgments may be renewed to update the amount owed
on the judgment and are not subject to the defense of
laches except for any part of the judgment that is owed
to the state. [Fam. Code 4502.]
Existing law does not provide a time period for
enforcement of a non-support money judgment, nor are
those judgments exempt from a defense of laches. [Code of
Civ. Proc. 683.310.]
This bill would provide that all money judgments or
judgments for possession or sale of property under the
Family Code are enforceable until paid in full or
otherwise satisfied. This bill would provide that
judgments may, but are not required to be renewed.
Failure to renew has no effect on the enforceability of
the judgment.
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 3
This bill would preserve the existing exemption from the
equitable defense of laches for support judgments, except
for that part of the judgment owed to the state.
This bill would require the Judicial Council to develop
self-help materials that include a description of
remedies available for enforcement of a judgment under
the Family Code, and practical advice on how to avoid
disputes relating to enforcement of a support obligation.
Those materials would be required to be placed on the
Judicial Council self-help web site.
2. Existing law prevents a court from granting certain
types of relief in limited civil cases, including awards
greater than $25,000, permanent injunctions,
determination of title to real property, and enforcement
of orders under the Family Code. [Code of Civ. Proc.
85, 580.]
This bill would remove the prohibition of enforcing
orders under the Family Code in limited civil cases.
Actions for enforcement, however, would be limited to the
jurisdictional $25,000 limit of the limited civil case.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author, AB 2126 would "help to avoid the
unfairness that can result from significantly different
enforcement rights applying to similar judgments." The
sponsor, California Law Revision Commission, points out
that the majority of family law litigants are
self-represented. Accordingly, the author states that
"[a] single rule for all Family Code judgments would be
significantly less confusing."
The sponsor further states in its 2005 recommendation
that the "multiplicity of rules is potentially confusing
. . . [and] may also lead to inequitable results, with
very similar judgments subject to significantly different
enforcement periods." Specifically, the sponsor lists
three factors which support a simplified rule:
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 4
(1) family law proceedings can have a profound
effect on the economic stability and welfare of
former spouses and their dependent children;
(2) special pressures in family law cases may
delay the enforcement of a judgment; and
(3) the unusual prevalence of self-represented
litigants in family law cases . . .
Accordingly, the California Law Revision Commission
recommends this bill to address those problems.
2. Delayed enforcement of judgments under the Family Code
AB 2126 would allow individuals to indefinitely extend
enforcement of judgments, subject to the defense of
laches in non-support cases.
In some cases, the change will allow an extended
enforcement period when collectibility has been a
problem. In other cases, the change will allow the
judgment creditor to purposefully delay enforcement, for
whatever reason. The most dramatic change would occur
for orders concerning the possession or sale of property,
which are currently subject to a ten-year period of
enforceability. This time period encourages enforcement
of the judgment, and promotes the transfer of real
property. Unlike a money judgment, property may
dramatically change over a period of time, thus immediate
enforcement of the judgment most accurately reflects the
intention of the trial court to award property worth a
certain value. The sponsor's recommendation specifically
addresses why these judgments may not be enforced for a
significant period of time.
The California Law Revision Commission's November 2005
recommendation for "Enforcement of Judgments Under the
Family Code" details special reasons why enforcement of
judgments may be delayed in family law cases. Foremost,
family law cases may involve "emotions and connections
[that] may persist long after dissolution or annulment of
marriage, especially if there is an ongoing obligation of
support or shared custody of children." Based upon the
unique nature of family law cases, that recommendation
described several situations where delay in enforcement
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 5
may occur:
A party may delay enforcement of a judgment in
order to avoid conflicts that could undermine the
welfare of minor children.
A party awarded ownership of the family home
may allow a former spouse to continue living in the
home out of a sense of obligation for the former
spouse's welfare.
A party may feel physically or psychologically
intimidated by a former spouse and forego
enforcement of a judgment in order to avoid harm .
. .
The recommendation also points out that the standard
ten-year enforcement period does not apply to awards of
restitution to crime victims. [Penal Code 1214.] The
sponsor hypothesizes that the rationale behind this
exception may be concerns about intimidation by the
judgment creditor. Thus, AB 2126 would help prevent a
former spouse from using intimidation to avoid a
judgment.
Alternatively, an award of property may be substantially
diminished, or enhanced by the time a delayed enforcement
occurs. For example, if a party who is awarded the
family home allows their former spouse to continue living
in the home, they are not able to receive the full value
of that home by the time the former spouse moves out.
If, for instance, the party was awarded the home in lieu
of an equivalent value of bonds, which the former spouse
immediately took possession of, that party's judgment is
tied up in the house. If the housing market dramatically
decreases over the next 20 years, while the former spouse
resides in the home, the party ends up receiving a less
than equal share of the estate. While this is a risk,
that same loss may occur under existing law, and may even
be more dramatic. If an unrepresented party does receive
the home and mistakenly waits 11 years to enforce the
judgment, they may lose all claims to that home.
Accordingly, removal of the ten-year limitation for
property judgments under the Family Code may offer more
complete protection of their interest.
3. Laches
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 6
The equitable defense of laches applies where there is
"an unreasonable delay in asserting an equitable right,
causing prejudice to an adverse party such as to render
the granting of relief to the other party inequitable."
[In re Marriage of Plescia (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 252,
256.] Thus, if a party delays too long in the
enforcement of a judgment such that it prejudices the
other party, laches acts as an affirmative defense to the
enforcement.
Under AB 2126, as with current law, a defendant in an
action to enforce a judgment for child, family, or
spousal support would only be able to use laches as a
defense for any portion of the judgment owed to the
state. Thus, laches would not be available during
enforcement of support judgments. Other judgments and
orders under the Family Code would be subject to the
defense of laches. Accordingly, even under AB 2126, if a
party unreasonably delays in the enforcement of their
judgment or order, the court may choose to deny relief on
the basis of laches. This preserves the ability of the
court to help prevent parties from abusing the extended
enforcement timeline. A corollary effect, however, is
that it may become a trap for the unwary judgment
creditor.
4. Enforcement of judgments under the Family Code in a
limited civil case
In 1998, Code of Civil Procedure Section 580 was amended
to limit relief that may be granted in a limited civil
case. This amendment coincided with the consolidation of
municipal and superior courts in California. Relief in
limited civil cases is generally restricted to relief
that traditionally would have been available in municipal
courts. For example, Family Code provisions
traditionally limited entering and enforcement of orders
under that code to the superior court. [Fam. Code 200,
290; In re Marriage of Lackey (1983) 143 Cal. App. 3d
698, 706.] This necessarily meant that municipal courts
were unable to enter or enforce orders in these cases.
Accordingly, awards of relief under the Family Code are
currently not allowed in limited civil cases.
The California Law Revision Commission studied the
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 7
remedies available in limited civil cases and found that
the "limitation interferes with the availability of two
judgment enforcement procedures that could otherwise be
used to enforce a Family Code judgment in a limited civil
case." Accordingly, AB 2126 would allow courts in limited
civil cases to enforce orders entered under the Family
Code. The sponsor's recommendation for this bill
stresses that "[o]ther judgment enforcement procedures,
which do not give rise to enforcement in a limited civil
case, would not be affected by the proposed change." The
sponsor asserts that this will allow enforcement of two
specific types of limited civil cases:
(1) A judgment creditor may bring suit against a
third person in possession or control of
property in which a judgment debtor has an
interest, or against a third person who is
indebted to the judgment debtor, in order to
satisfy the judgment. If the amount in
controversy is $25,000 or less, such a suit
would be classified as a limited civil case.
(2) A judgment creditor may file a lien on a
debtor's cause of action in a pending civil
case, including a limited civil case. The
judgment creditor can then intervene in the
case and the court may order satisfaction of
the judgment from assets at issue in the case.
Thus, AB 2126 would facilitate recovery by judgment
creditors from the debtor. This would allow a party to
collect owed support from the debtor spouse by attaching
to their recovery in a limited civil case, and to bring
other limited actions to collect that debt in a limited
civil case.
5. Effect of the death of judgment debtor or creditor
AB 2126 would extend the enforcement period indefinitely,
which would raise questions as to what happens to
unenforced judgments upon the death of either the debtor
or creditor. To address any concerns, AB 2126 provides
that "[n]othing in this section supersedes the law
governing enforcement of a judgment after the death of
the judgment creditor or judgment debtor."
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 8
The sponsor's recommendation states that this provision
is consistent with a recent California appellate court
decision. In that decision, the court stated that Family
Code Section 4502's statement that support judgments are
enforceable until paid in full "does not address the
procedural requirements for reaching the assets of a
judgment debtor after that debtor's death." [Embree v.
Embree (2004) 125 Cal. App. 4th 487, 495.] Accordingly,
AB 2126 ensures that extending enforcement of all orders
under the Family Code does not affect current law
relating to collection of assets from a judgment debtor's
estate after their death.
6. Judicial Council self-help web site information
To further the goal of AB 2126 to simplify enforcement of
judgments in family law cases, this bill would require
the Judicial Council to develop and make available
self-help materials that include a description of
remedies available, and practical advice on how to avoid
disputes relating to the enforcement of a support
obligation.
As stated in the sponsor's recommendation, "[t]he
unusually high rate of self-representation in family law
cases argues in favor of uniformity and simplicity in
family law procedures, in order to avoid pitfalls for
nonlawyers." The self-help materials to be made
available by the Judicial Council web site would help to
educate those self-represented individuals seeking to
enforce judgments received in family law cases.
7. Renewal of judgments
Under the Civil Code, judgments can be renewed to extend
the standard ten-year enforcement period. Any renewed
judgment commences another ten-year period for
enforcement of that judgment. [Code of Civ. Proc
683.110, 683.220, 683.020.] As mentioned above, the
orders or judgments under the Family Code are exempt from
the Civil Code requirements, except for those dealing
with the possession or sale of real property. [Fam. Code
291; Code of Civ. Proc. 383.310.]
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 9
AB 2126 specifically exempts all judgments under the
Family Code from the requirement of renewal. For those
judgments that were required to previously be renewed,
this tracks the proposed change in enforcement period.
If judgments are enforceable until paid in full, there is
no need to renew the judgment for purposes of extending
that period.
Similar to current law, AB 2126 would allow parties to
renew their judgment to update the amount owed. Failure
to renew a judgment under the Family Code would have no
effect on the enforceability of the judgment. Allowing
this renewal helps the judgment to more accurately
reflect the amount owed.
Support: None Known
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: The California Law Revision Commission
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: AB 1358 (Shelley, Chapter 808, Statutes
of 2000) contained "cleanup" provisions for
major child support reform measures, including
revising Family Code enforcement provisions.
SB 2139 (Lockyer, Chapter 931, Statutes of
1998) implemented various changes to
consolidate municipal and superior courts.
SCA 4 (Lockyer, Chapter 36, Statues of 1996)
consolidated municipal and superior courts upon
passage by the voters.
Prior Vote: Asm. Jud. (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
Asm. Appr. (Ayes 18, Noes 0)
Asm. Flr. (Ayes 75, Noes 0)
**************
AB 2126 (Lieu)
Page 10