Paying a judgement with a judgement

[jacarand]

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

Hello everyone and thanks for reading my post.

I evicted a tenant and won a judgement of about $4000. The tenant sued me in small claims court and won back their security deposit of $1000. During the proceeding, the judge told us that since we have judgements against each other, all I had to do was file a declaration saying that I am paying the tenants judgement with the one I have against him.

Unfortunately, I asked the small claims court adviser and they had no clue what the judge was talking about. The filing clerk had no clue either. My eviction lawyer never heard of this before.

Does anyone know how to properly offset a judgement with another judgement? My tenant is very aggressive and I don't have time to deal with him.

I looked at form SC-145 & SC-220, neither seem appropriate. I am not sure what the judge was talking about, I wish I had asked him before he adjourned the case. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated!

Jacarand

 

[quincy]

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

Hello everyone and thanks for reading my post.

I evicted a tenant and won a judgement of about $4000. The tenant sued me in small claims court and won back their security deposit of $1000. During the proceeding, the judge told us that since we have judgements against each other, all I had to do was file a declaration saying that I am paying the tenants judgement with the one I have against him.

Unfortunately, I asked the small claims court adviser and they had no clue what the judge was talking about. The filing clerk had no clue either. My eviction lawyer never heard of this before.

Does anyone know how to properly offset a judgement with another judgement? My tenant is very aggressive and I don't have time to deal with him.

I looked at form SC-145 & SC-220, neither seem appropriate. I am not sure what the judge was talking about, I wish I had asked him before he adjourned the case. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated!

Jacarand

Your tenant can file an "Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment" form with the court in exchange for a $1000 reduction in the amount he owes you on your judgment against him.

Your tenant would check on his form that his judgment against you in the amount of $1000 is satisfied "in full."

At the same time you would provide your tenant with a receipt showing a partial payment of $1000 on the judgment you have against him. Balance owing $3000.

I recommend you and your tenant go to court together to make sure you both do what you should do.

Here is a link to the form your tenant will use (although check with the court for any updated version):
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ej100.pdf

I don't believe YOU need to file anything with the court until your own judgment is satisfied. Someone will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.

 

[justalayman]

You say the tenant won back their deposit money. Are you suggesting the first case awarded you the deposit?

 

[latigo]

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

Hello everyone and thanks for reading my post.

I evicted a tenant and won a judgement of about $4000. The tenant sued me in small claims court and won back their security deposit of $1000. During the proceeding, the judge told us that since we have judgements against each other, all I had to do was file a declaration saying that I am paying the tenants judgement with the one I have against him.

Unfortunately, I asked the small claims court adviser and they had no clue what the judge was talking about. The filing clerk had no clue either. My eviction lawyer never heard of this before.

Does anyone know how to properly offset a judgement with another judgement? My tenant is very aggressive and I don't have time to deal with him.

I looked at form SC-145 & SC-220, neither seem appropriate. I am not sure what the judge was talking about, I wish I had asked him before he adjourned the case. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated!

Jacarand

Before discussing the judge's strange remarks something else needs to be mentioned having to do with the policy of avoiding multiplicity of lawsuits and compulsory counterclaims.

Here it would seem that you are talking about two separate lawsuits - first yours and then the tenants. Otherwise the $1000 would have been set off against your claim reducing it to $3000. (Even if they crossed paths the two cases should have been joined for one trial resulting in one and not two judgments.

If this is true, then the tenant should never have been allowed to pursue his separate lawsuit. Such a claim having arisen out of the same transaction involving your lawsuit (the landlord/tenant relationship) would constitute what is known as a "compulsory counterclaim" that needed to be asserted in your lawsuit. Otherwise the claim for the $1000 would be forever waived - as in kaput.

(Of course, if the tenant's judgment preceded your filing, your claim would be waived unless asserted as a counterclaim in his lawsuit.)

How to deal with it? Good question. Since it is too late to move to have anything dismissed or challenge anything, the simplest means of balancing it would be for the two of you to agree that you file a partial satisfaction of your judgment to the tune of $1000 and the tenant file a full satisfaction of his judgment. All done simultaneously, of course.

 

[jacarand]

quincy: He does not seem to understand that I have a larger judgement against him and keeps demanding that I pay his judgement. I've even offered to forgive his judgement if he just leaves me alone. Unfortunately I know he won't file an "Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment" because he wants money.

justalayman: I was awarded holdover damages, lawyer fees, etc., But I failed to deliver an itemized statement accounting for his security deposit within 21 days and left an opening for him to sue me. My mistake and I deserved to lose in the preceding small claims case.

latigo: I wish I knew about the "compulsory counterclaim", I would have tried to have the case dismissed in small claims court. He won't agree to file a satisfaction to his judgement, only $1000 in his pocket will make him happy.

Thank you all for you help, I will keep calling the court to find out what to do, i'll keep you all posted

 

[quincy]

... Since it is too late to move to have anything dismissed or challenge anything, the simplest means of balancing it would be for the two of you to agree that you file a partial satisfaction of your judgment to the tune of $1000 and the tenant file a full satisfaction of his judgment. All done simultaneously, of course.

I agree that something seems a bit odd with the way the court handled the judgments. There should have been a single $3000 judgment awarded to the landlord rather than $1000 to the tenant and $4000 to the landlord.

I also agree that the satisfaction of the $1000 judgment should be filed with the court at the same time the $1000 partial payment on the $4000 judgment is recorded. The link to the form that is used in California has been provided above.

 

[Zigner]

Since the matter of the security deposit doesn't arise until after the tenant has vacated, I can certainly see them being separate cases.

 

[justalayman]

Since the matter of the security deposit doesn't arise until after the tenant has vacated, I can certainly see them being separate cases.

The judgment should have been awarded to the op as an offset of the award. If done properly the tenant couldn’t have a valid suit against the op. There should have been no deposit to sue for.

 

[Zigner]

The judgment should have been awarded to the op as an offset of the award. If done properly the tenant couldn’t have a valid suit against the op. There should have been no deposit to sue for.

The matters were heard in different courts (they are different matters).

 

[quincy]

The matters were heard in different courts (they are different matters).

They should not have been heard in different courts.

 

[Zigner]

They should not have been heard in different courts.

Why not? Evictions do not occur in small claims. At the time of the eviction, there was nothing for the (former) tenant to counterclaim. It was only after the LL failed to perform as required by law that a cause of action arose for the (former) tenant.

 

[quincy]

Why not? Evictions do not occur in small claims. At the time of the eviction, there was nothing for the (former) tenant to counterclaim. It was only after the LL failed to perform as required by law that a cause of action arose for the (former) tenant.

Because there should have been counterclaims, either by the landlord to the small claims security deposit suit or by the tenant to the landlord's superior court suit.

This appears to have been bungled badly.

 

[Zigner]

Because there should have been counterclaims, either by the landlord to the small claims security deposit suit or by the tenant to the landlord's superior court suit.

This appears to have been bungled badly.

No, you've got it wrong here. There is no counterclaim to be had. These are two entirely separate causes of action.

ETA: At the time of the eviction suit, there was nothing to counterclaim by the tenant, as the failure to properly account for and/or return the security deposit had not occurred yet. At the time of the small claims suit, there was nothing to be counterclaimed by the OP since the OP already had a judgment.

 

[jacarand]

I agree that something seems a bit odd with the way the court handled the judgments. There should have been a single $3000 judgment awarded to the landlord rather than $1000 to the tenant and $4000 to the landlord.

I also agree that the satisfaction of the $1000 judgment should be filed with the court at the same time the $1000 partial payment on the $4000 judgment is recorded. The link to the form that is used in California has been provided above.

If I fill out EJ-100 and give the former tenant a partial satisfaction of my judgement, how does this prevent the tenant from using an order of examination or writ of execution?

 

[justalayman]

The matters were heard in different courts (they are different matters).

The second trial should have never have happened. The judge in the op’s trial (him as plaintiff), should have applied the deposit as an offset to the award.


Additionally, given the op was awarded a judgment, it only makes sense he had a right to retain the deposit so the second suit should have been tossed.