Case No. A169131 - Formatted Opinion - Case Brief

7 Mins read

Case Number: A169131_markdown
Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One
Date Filed: August 31, 2025

Holding

The court held that the judgment and its renewal remain enforceable because the creditor properly renewed the judgment within the statutory period, the renewal created a valid judgment lien that attached to the decedent’s after‑acquired property, and the creditor’s failure to file a probate claim does not bar enforcement under Probate Code § 9391, which permits a judgment‑lien holder to foreclose the lien without filing a claim.

Barrow v. Holmes presented a textbook clash between the Enforcement of Judgments Law and the probate regime governing claims against a decedent’s estate. Sweetwyne P. Barrow, the judgment creditor, obtained a $1.95 million money judgment against Martin Calvin Holmes in 2011. After Martin’s death in 2020, his surviving spouse, Rhonda Holmes, administered his estate without receiving a creditor claim from Barrow. Barrow later filed an application to renew the judgment in December 2020, which extended the judgment’s enforceability through December 2030. Rhonda moved to vacate both the original and the renewed judgments, arguing that Barrow’s failure to file a probate claim barred any enforcement. The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court affirmed.

Procedural History

  1. Trial Court Judgment (2011). Barrow sued Martin for negligence, intentional tort, and fraud. Martin’s answer was stricken; the court entered a default judgment for $1,948,370 plus fees.
  2. Recording of Abstract (2015). Barrow recorded an abstract of judgment in Alameda County, creating a judgment lien on Martin’s real‑property interests.
  3. Probate Commences (2020). Martin died September 2020; Rhonda filed a petition for independent administration, published notice to creditors, and was appointed executor. No creditor claim was filed by Barrow.
  4. Renewal Application (Dec 2020). Barrow filed an application for renewal of the judgment, identifying a total renewed amount of $3,741,518.72. The renewal was recorded in June 2023.
  5. Motion to Vacate (Feb 2023). Rhonda moved to vacate the original judgment—or alternatively, the renewed judgment—asserting that Barrow’s failure to file a probate claim extinguished the creditor’s rights. The trial court denied the motion in October 2023, addressing both non‑probate and probate issues.
  6. Appeal (2025). Rhonda appealed the denial of the motion to vacate the renewed judgment. The appellate panel reviewed the probate‑related arguments de novo and the factual findings for abuse of discretion.

Facts

  • The original judgment was entered in 2011; Barrow recorded an abstract in 2015, thereby perfecting a lien on any real property owned by Martin at that time and on any property Martin later acquired.
  • Martin acquired the Rusting Avenue residence in 2017, after the abstract was recorded.
  • The estate was distributed in December 2021; the Rusting Avenue property was transferred to Rhonda as a life estate with two of Martin’s sons as remaindermen.
  • Barrow did not serve Martin’s last known address or his personal representative with the renewal application, but statutory law does not require service for the renewal to be effective.
  • Rhonda never received notice of the renewal, nor did she file a creditor claim during probate.

Issues

  1. Whether Barrow’s renewal of the judgment was timely and therefore effective.
  2. Whether a judgment lien recorded before the decedent’s death survives the probate process without a creditor claim.
  3. Whether Probate Code § 9391 permits Barrow to enforce the lien without filing a claim, thereby defeating Rhonda’s argument that the judgment is void.

Reasoning

Renewal Effectiveness. The court applied §§ 683.110‑683.120, holding that a renewal filed within the ten‑year enforceability window automatically extends the judgment’s life for another ten years. The lack of service on the debtor or his estate does not invalidate the renewal; it merely delays issuance of a writ of execution until proof of service is filed. Accordingly, the renewal was valid through December 2030.

Judgment Lien Attachment. Under §§ 697.310 and 697.340, a recorded abstract creates a lien on the debtor’s present and after‑acquired real property in the recording county. The Rusting Avenue house, acquired by Martin in 2017, fell within the lien’s reach. The lien therefore survived Martin’s death and remained attached to the property transferred to Rhonda and the remaindermen.

Probate Claim Requirement. Probate Code §§ 9000‑9002 make a timely claim a condition precedent to suing the estate, but § 9391 carves out a “lien‑creditor” exception. The appellate court relied on County Line Holdings, LLC v. McClanahan and the Supreme Court’s Corporation of America v. Marks to affirm that a holder of a judgment lien may foreclose the lien without filing a probate claim, provided the creditor expressly waives recourse against other estate assets in the enforcement action. Barrow’s abstract satisfied the “holder of a mortgage or other lien” prong, and the statute does not require the lien creditor to file a claim before the estate is distributed. The court rejected Rhonda’s contention that § 9391 applies only before distribution, emphasizing that the lien’s existence runs independent of the probate timeline.

Statutory Barriers. The court noted that § 686.020 of the Enforcement of Judgments Law expressly defers to the Probate Code after a debtor’s death, but that deferral does not eliminate a pre‑existing lien. Moreover, § 683.170 permits vacating a renewal only on defenses that would defeat an action on the judgment; the failure to file a probate claim is not such a defense when the creditor can enforce a lien under § 9391.

Burden of Proof. Rhonda bore the burden of showing a defense to any enforcement action. She offered no evidence that the lien was extinguished, that the property was free of encumbrance, or that Barrow had waived the right to enforce the lien. Consequently, the appellate panel found no error in the trial court’s denial.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, confirming that Barrow’s judgment and its renewal remain enforceable and that the lack of a probate claim does not bar enforcement of a pre‑existing judgment lien. The decision reinforces the durability of judgment liens that attach before a decedent’s death and clarifies the scope of Probate Code § 9391 as an alternative to filing a creditor claim.

Implications for Practitioners

  • Judgment creditors should record abstracts promptly; once recorded, the lien survives the debtor’s death and attaches to after‑acquired property.
  • Failure to file a probate claim does not automatically foreclose a creditor’s rights when a lien exists; invoking § 9391 may be a viable enforcement route.
  • Renewal applications need not be served on the estate to be effective, but recording the certified copy before the lien expires is essential to preserve the lien’s enforceability.
  • Executors should review recorded abstracts early in probate to assess potential lien encumbrances and consider whether a creditor may elect to enforce under § 9391 rather than filing a claim.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Code of Civil Procedure §§ 686.020, 683.020, 683.110‑683.170, 697.310, 697.340, 683.180, 683.150, 683.160, 683.120, 683.150, 683.170.
  • Probate Code §§ 9000, 9002, 9050, 9300‑9304, 9391.
  • Key Cases: Goldman v. Simpson (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 255; Altizer v. Highsmith (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 331; County Line Holdings, LLC v. McClanahan (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1067; Corporation of America v. Marks (1937) 10 Cal.2d 218; Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066; Starcevic v. Pentech Financial Services (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 365; Dobler v. Arluk Medical Center (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 530; Embree v. Embree (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 487; Estate of Casserley (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 824; Dills v. Redwoods Associates (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888; American Contractors Indemnity Co. v. Hernandez (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 845.