Small Claims Judgment Got Double-Paid - Now What?

[InProPerr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi,

I'm in an interesting situation now with collecting on my small-claims judgment. Here are the facts:

0) The judgment is for $1,650 principal + $90 court costs, plus the post-judgment costs and interest

1) On November 2, 2012, a bank levy is served on the debtors' financial institution
2) On November 20, 2012, one of the debtors pays me $600 voluntarily by check
3) On November 27, 2012, I find out from the debtor's financial institution's levy department that they sent Sheriff a check on 11/20/2012
4) On November 30, 2012, I find out from the Sheriff that they got a check on 11/30/12 for $1,752.16
5) On December 2, 2012, I find out from the judgment debtor that paid me $600 earlier that he and his ex-spouse (she's the other judgment debtor) met in court on 11/30/2012 through a court-appointed mediator, filled out form SC-145 (Request to Pay Judgment to Court) and paid the remaining amount of $1,342.71 (after $600 is subtracted and court costs declared so far on MC-012's plus interest are added) directly to the court, and the court entered a full satisfaction of judgment.

So now here I am: I got $600 on 11/20/2012, the Sheriff got $1,752.16 on 11/30/2012 and is holding it for 21 days before disbursement, and the court got $1,342.71 on 11/30/2012 and entered a full satisfaction of judgment.

Question 1: The court's full satisfaction of judgment on form SC-145 does not take into account the costs I spent on the bank levy ($140) and the costs I spent on recording the amended abstract of judgment ($35) that haven't yet been included on an MC-012. When I tried to look up the law governing form SC-145, I didn't find any references to any California Civil Code section whatsoever on the form itself (in the lower left-hand corner) nor online. Is there any recourse when the court does not include all costs on SC-145 (e.g. those not yet declared on an MC-012) and enters a full satisfaction of judgment based on that incomplete information? If there is recourse, what is it?

Question 2: What is or are the statute(s) of California Law governing the use of SC-145 by judgment debtors to immediately achieve full satisfaction of judgment?

Question 3: What's going to happen now to the money the Sheriff has got? If it is disbursed to me, may I take from that money the costs I spent on the bank levy, to cover them, since the levy was done under a writ of execution that allows such satisfaction of costs from the funds levied?

An unusual situation, to say the least. Any constructive advice would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!!!

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi,

I'm in an interesting situation now with collecting on my small-claims judgment. Here are the facts:

0) The judgment is for $1,650 principal + $90 court costs, plus the post-judgment costs and interest

1) On November 2, 2012, a bank levy is served on the debtors' financial institution
2) On November 20, 2012, one of the debtors pays me $600 voluntarily by check
3) On November 27, 2012, I find out from the debtor's financial institution's levy department that they sent Sheriff a check on 11/20/2012
4) On November 30, 2012, I find out from the Sheriff that they got a check on 11/30/12 for $1,752.16
5) On December 2, 2012, I find out from the judgment debtor that paid me $600 earlier that he and his ex-spouse (she's the other judgment debtor) met in court on 11/30/2012 through a court-appointed mediator, filled out form SC-145 (Request to Pay Judgment to Court) and paid the remaining amount of $1,342.71 (after $600 is subtracted and court costs declared so far on MC-012's plus interest are added) directly to the court, and the court entered a full satisfaction of judgment.

So now here I am: I got $600 on 11/20/2012, the Sheriff got $1,752.16 on 11/30/2012 and is holding it for 21 days before disbursement, and the court got $1,342.71 on 11/30/2012 and entered a full satisfaction of judgment.

Question 1: The court's full satisfaction of judgment on form SC-145 does not take into account the costs I spent on the bank levy ($140) and the costs I spent on recording the amended abstract of judgment ($35) that haven't yet been included on an MC-012. When I tried to look up the law governing form SC-145, I didn't find any references to any California Civil Code section whatsoever on the form itself (in the lower left-hand corner) nor online. Is there any recourse when the court does not include all costs on SC-145 (e.g. those not yet declared on an MC-012) and enters a full satisfaction of judgment based on that incomplete information? If there is recourse, what is it?

Question 2: What is or are the statute(s) of California Law governing the use of SC-145 by judgment debtors to immediately achieve full satisfaction of judgment?

Question 3: What's going to happen now to the money the Sheriff has got? If it is disbursed to me, may I take from that money the costs I spent on the bank levy, to cover them, since the levy was done under a writ of execution that allows such satisfaction of costs from the funds levied?

An unusual situation, to say the least. Any constructive advice would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!!!

If/when the sheriff's office disburses those funds to you, return them to the judgment debtor. Of course, the sheriff may well see that the judgment has already been otherwise satisfied and do that for you instead.

As for the levy fees, I'm not sure how to advise on that.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi,

I'm in an interesting situation now with collecting on my small-claims judgment. Here are the facts:

0) The judgment is for $1,650 principal + $90 court costs, plus the post-judgment costs and interest

1) On November 2, 2012, a bank levy is served on the debtors' financial institution
2) On November 20, 2012, one of the debtors pays me $600 voluntarily by check
3) On November 27, 2012, I find out from the debtor's financial institution's levy department that they sent Sheriff a check on 11/20/2012
4) On November 30, 2012, I find out from the Sheriff that they got a check on 11/30/12 for $1,752.16
5) On December 2, 2012, I find out from the judgment debtor that paid me $600 earlier that he and his ex-spouse (she's the other judgment debtor) met in court on 11/30/2012 through a court-appointed mediator, filled out form SC-145 (Request to Pay Judgment to Court) and paid the remaining amount of $1,342.71 (after $600 is subtracted and court costs declared so far on MC-012's plus interest are added) directly to the court, and the court entered a full satisfaction of judgment.

So now here I am: I got $600 on 11/20/2012, the Sheriff got $1,752.16 on 11/30/2012 and is holding it for 21 days before disbursement, and the court got $1,342.71 on 11/30/2012 and entered a full satisfaction of judgment.

Question 1: The court's full satisfaction of judgment on form SC-145 does not take into account the costs I spent on the bank levy ($140) and the costs I spent on recording the amended abstract of judgment ($35) that haven't yet been included on an MC-012. When I tried to look up the law governing form SC-145, I didn't find any references to any California Civil Code section whatsoever on the form itself (in the lower left-hand corner) nor online. Is there any recourse when the court does not include all costs on SC-145 (e.g. those not yet declared on an MC-012) and enters a full satisfaction of judgment based on that incomplete information? If there is recourse, what is it?

Question 2: What is or are the statute(s) of California Law governing the use of SC-145 by judgment debtors to immediately achieve full satisfaction of judgment?

Question 3: What's going to happen now to the money the Sheriff has got? If it is disbursed to me, may I take from that money the costs I spent on the bank levy, to cover them, since the levy was done under a writ of execution that allows such satisfaction of costs from the funds levied?

An unusual situation, to say the least. Any constructive advice would be very much appreciated.

Thanks!!!

Once the debtor proves that they paid the debt off via court, the the sheriff should return the funds to their bank account. That is the whole point of the sheriff holding the funds for 21 days...to make sure that there is no duplication on the collection.

 

[dcatz]

If the OP is still reading:

Actually, the reason the Sherriff holds the funds (and it may be anywhere from 21 to 30 days because of current financial backlogs in the CA judicial system) is to determine if there are creditors’ with priority claims (as a simple example, if the seizure included funds that were based on a deposit that bounced, your bank would be a priority claimant).

Then, the funds are sent to the County Auditor for disbursement via a County draft. Under the best of conditions, the whole process is about 45 days. If you haven’t seen the funds yet, write/call the Sheriff and see if they’re still being held. If they’ve been sent to the Auditor, do the same thing. If they’re being held by one or the other, send a Release of $X (the difference between what you’re owed and what you’ve received). You may be requested to notarize it.

If you’ve actually already received an excess (which I doubt given your time line), return it to the court with a letter explaining the same thing you did above and an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction. The court will return it to the debtors, and you won’t risk a later claim of excessive levy.