Case Number: A169131
Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One
Date Filed: August 31, 2025
Holding
The court held that the creditor’s failure to file a probate claim does not bar enforcement of a pre‑death judgment lien, and that the judgment was properly renewed; consequently, the trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate was affirmed.
Narrative
Lead – In Barrow v. Holmes, the California Court of Appeal resolved a clash between the Enforcement of Judgments Law and the Probate Code, holding that a judgment creditor who recorded an abstract of judgment before a debtor’s death may enforce the lien without filing a probate claim, and that a timely renewal of the judgment extends its enforceability despite the debtor’s demise.
Procedural History – Sweetwyne P. Barrow obtained a $1,948,370 money judgment against Martin Calvin Holmes in 2011. After Martin’s death in September 2020, his surviving spouse, Rhonda Holmes, became the estate’s executor and completed the probate administration in December 2021. Barrow never filed a creditor claim in the probate proceeding. In December 2020 Barrow filed an application to renew the judgment, which extended the judgment’s enforceability to December 2030; the renewal was recorded in June 2023. In February 2023 Rhonda moved to vacate the original judgment—or, alternatively, the renewed judgment—arguing that Barrow’s failure to file a probate claim barred any enforcement. The trial court denied the motion; Barrow appealed.
Facts – The original judgment was recorded as an abstract of judgment in Alameda County in 2015, creating a lien on Martin’s real property, including the Rusting Avenue residence he later acquired in 2017. The renewal application filed on December 21 2020 was timely—within the ten‑year enforcement window—but was not served on the estate. The probate court transferred the Rusting Avenue property to Rhonda as a life estate and to Martin’s two sons as remaindermen; no levy was made against the property.
Issues – (1) Whether Barrow’s failure to file a creditor claim in Martin’s probate estate bars enforcement of the judgment lien; (2) Whether the renewal of the judgment was effective despite the lack of service on the estate; (3) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
Renewal – The court affirmed that the December 2020 renewal was proper. Under §§ 683.120 and 683.150, filing a renewal application within the ten‑year period automatically extends the judgment’s enforceability for another ten years. Service of the renewal on the debtor or estate is not a condition precedent to its effectiveness; it merely affects the issuance of writs.
Probate Claim Requirement – Section 686.020 of the Enforcement of Judgments Law directs that post‑mortem enforcement be governed by the Probate Code. The Code’s creditor‑claim provisions ( §§ 9000‑9002) generally require a timely claim, but § 9391 creates a “lien‑creditor” exception. The statute permits a holder of a judgment lien to enforce the lien without filing a claim, provided the complaint expressly waives recourse against other estate assets. The court relied on County Line Holdings, LLC v. McClanahan (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1067 and the Supreme Court’s Corporation of America v. Marks (1937) 10 Cal.2d 218, which recognize that a judgment lien survives the debtor’s death and may be foreclosed by a lien‑creditor action, albeit without a right to a deficiency.
Barrow’s abstract of judgment, recorded before Martin’s death, attached a lien to the Rusting Avenue property when he acquired it in 2017. Because the lien existed prior to death, the lien‑creditor exception applies. The court rejected Rhonda’s contention that § 9391 is limited to actions filed before estate distribution, noting that the statute expressly allows enforcement “at any time during the statutory duration of the judgment lien.”
Effect of Failure to File a Claim – The appellate court emphasized that the failure to file a probate claim does not extinguish an existing judgment lien. The only way a lien is terminated is by satisfaction, release, or expiration of the judgment’s ten‑year period ( §§ 683.020, 697.400). Since Barrow renewed the judgment, the lien remains enforceable through 2030.
Vacatur Standard – Under § 683.170, a party seeking to vacate a renewal bears the burden of proving a defense to enforcement. Rhonda offered no evidence that the lien was invalid or that the renewal was ineffective; consequently, the trial court’s denial was affirmed.
Conclusion – The appellate decision clarifies that a judgment creditor who perfects a lien before a debtor’s death may enforce that lien without filing a probate claim, and that a timely renewal of the judgment preserves the lien’s enforceability. The ruling affirms the trial court’s discretion and underscores the limited reach of probate‑claim requirements when a pre‑death lien exists.
Impact – Practitioners should note that recording an abstract of judgment before a debtor’s death creates a durable lien that survives probate, and that renewal filings need not be served on the estate to be effective. The decision also signals that courts will not expand the creditor‑claim filing requirement to override the statutory lien‑creditor exception, preserving a clear enforcement pathway for judgment creditors. Unresolved questions remain regarding the procedural mechanics of a lien‑creditor action post‑distribution and the extent of any waiver language required in the original complaint.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- Code of Civil Procedure §§ 683.010‑683.180 (Enforcement of Judgments Law – judgment enforceability, renewal, lien creation, recording requirements)
- Probate Code §§ 9000‑9002 (Creditor claim filing requirements)
- Probate Code §§ 9300‑9304 (Effect of death on money judgments)
- Probate Code § 9391 (Lien‑creditor exception to claim filing)
- Probate Code § 686.020 (Governing post‑mortem judgment enforcement)
Major Cases Cited
- Goldman v. Simpson, 160 Cal.App.4th 255 (2008) – renewal and defenses to judgment enforcement
- Altizer v. Highsmith, 52 Cal.App.5th 331 (2020) – vacatur standards for renewed judgments
- County Line Holdings, LLC v. McClanahan, 22 Cal.App.5th 1067 (2018) – lien‑creditor enforcement without probate claim
- Corporation of America v. Marks, 10 Cal.2d 218 (1937) – judgment lien survives debtor’s death; lien‑creditor options
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton, 17 Cal.App.4th 1066 (1993) – judgment lien creation and extinguishment
- Starcevic v. Pentech Financial Services, Inc., 66 Cal.App.5th 365 (2021) – expiration of judgment liens
- Embree v. Embree, 125 Cal.App.4th 487 (2004) – requirement to file a claim when no pre‑death lien exists
- Estate of Casserley, 22 Cal.App.5th 824 (2018) – abstract of judgment filed after death does not create lien