Q: In a receivership I just wrapped up, the court approved my final account and report and awarded me final fees. Because there were insufficient funds in estate to pay my fees in full, the court ordered the defendant to pay my outstanding approved fees. The defendant, however, has not paid me. Am I entitled to interest on my outstanding fees even though I don’t have a judgment?
A: Actually, you do have a judgment and you are entitled to interest on your unpaid fees. As explained in a prior Ask the Receiver, “judgment” is defined differently in different sections of the Code of Civil Procedure. Code of Civil Procedure § 557 defines “judgment” as: “The final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” Because you, as receiver, were not a “party” in the underlying action, the court’s direction that the defendant pay your fees would be an order, which is defined in C.C.P. §1003 as: “Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing, not included in a judgment, is denominated an order.” The Enforcement of Judgments Law (C.C.P. § 680.010 et.seq.), however, has its own definition of “judgment”. Code of Civil Procedure § 685.010 states: “ ‘Judgment’ means a judgment, order or decree entered in a court of this state.” Therefore, the court’s “order” that the defendant pay your fees is a “judgment” for collection purposes. This means it can enforced like any other judgment.
As for interest, the California Constitution, Article XV, Section 1 (2) states in part: “The rate of interest on a judgment rendered in any court of this State shall be set by the Legislature at not more that 10 percent per annum…In the absence of the setting of such rate by the Legislature, the rate of interest on any judgment rendered in any court of the State shall be 7 percent per annum.” The Legislature did act by providing in C.C.P. §685.010 ( part of The Enforcement of Judgments Law): “ Except as provided in paragraph (2), interest accrues at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied.” Therefore, you are entitled to 10 percent per annum interest on your unpaid fees, from the entry of the court’s order (“judgment”).
Paragraph (2) referred to in the statute was added, effective January 1, 2023, for judgments added or renewed on or after that date, reducing the interest accrual to 5 percent for judgments under $200,000, remaining unsatisfied, for a claim related to medical expenses or for a money judgment under $50,000, remaining unsatisfied, for a claim related to “personal debt”. These reductions only apply to debtors who are a ‘natural person”. C.C.P. § 685.010 (c)(1). “Personal debt” means money due or owing from a transaction “primarily for the debtor’s personal, family, or household purposes.” C.C.P. § 685.010 (c)(111). It is unlikely either reduced rate would apply to awarded receiver’s fees.
The way the amendment to the statute is written, it appears the 10 percent interest rate applies to medical or personal debts, so long as the amount of the judgment remains in excess of the indicated dollar amounts ($200,000 and $50,000) and then drops to 5 percent once the “remaining unsatisfied” amount falls below those dollar amounts.
When money is collected on your “judgment” it is to be credited first, for specific costs that go to the levying officer or for court fees, then first toward accrued interest and then toward the judgment principal. C.C.P. § 695.220.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Senior Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership, and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014