Renewal of Judgment Requires Recording of Application for Renewal for Survival of Judgment Lien – Pete Steinberg

From Pete Steinberg:

As you may be aware from my prior emails, my firm and I handle Plaintiff litigation arising from bankruptcy malpractice, and, like you, I am also on the Bankruptcy Mediation Panel.

Recently, an issue arose in a bankruptcy case that deserves discussion. I came upon a matter which may cause a law firm liability for an easily overlooked error, as follows. The law firm represented a judgment creditor whom held a judgment and judgment lien (abstract of judgment) against a struggling individual, dba sole proprietorship. When the judgment had approached ten years of age, the law firm filed a renewal motion and timely obtained an order renewing the judgment. Approximately six (6) months later, the judgment debtor filed Chapter 7, and listed the judgment creditor as wholly unsecured. The reason being that the law firm did not also record, timely or otherwise, a certified copy of the application for renewal of the judgment in the county where the judgment debtor’s real property was located, see C.C.P. sec 683.180 (a)., before the judgment debtor, now bankruptcy debtor, filed Chapter 7. As a result, the law firm’s judgment creditor client is subject to an avoidance motion, and the law firm liability for failing to record the certified copy of the renewal motion.

Obviously, all issues of voidability and malpractice could have been avoided by the timely recording of the renewal motion as required by California law.

If a client or acquaintance of yours is a potential claimant, please feel free to inquire to see if I may be of assistance. For more information regarding our firm, you may visit our website

Very truly yours,

Peter T. Steinberg
TEL: 818-876-8535
FAX: 818-876-8536
23801 Calabasas Road #2031
Calabasas, CA 91302

Leave a Reply

3 + = eleven