The Second District reversed the revival of a dormant consent judgment, holding that Autovest failed to establish the current balance owed and that the trial court erred by reviving the judgment without an evidentiary hearing despite disputed payment amounts.
The First District affirmed summary judgment for a debt collector, holding that an asset schedule produced in response to a court order for a more definite statement, combined with supporting documentation, was sufficient to establish the validity of the assignment of a defaulted credit card account.
The Ninth District affirmed a $3 million cognovit judgment, holding that Civ.R. 60(B) relief from judgment was unavailable where the original judgment was not yet final due to unresolved attorney fees, and that Civ.R. 54(B) reconsideration was properly denied.
The Fourth District held that a judgment creditor cannot use the spousal exception to levy a third party’s bank accounts without a court order when the marriage supporting the levy was bigamous and void from its inception.
The Ninth Circuit revived willful FCRA and CCRAA claims against Wells Fargo for pulling credit reports after opening unauthorized bank accounts, but upheld dismissal of negligence claims for insufficiently pleaded actual damages.
California’s Fourth District holds that check memo-line annotations labeling payments as “loan payment” are not sufficient written acknowledgments to revive a debt already barred by the statute of limitations.
The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee who fails to preserve estate assets is not shielded by quasi-judicial immunity because property-management duties are administrative, not adjudicative.
Second District holds California exemption law applies to collection actions in California courts regardless of where the judgment debtor lives, and that funds rolled over from a surrendered life insurance policy into IRAs are not categorically exempt from levy.
Santa Clara Appellate Division reverses a debt-buyer’s trial judgment, holding the trial court erred in admitting testimony from an undisclosed witness and account records that were not properly authenticated under the business-records hearsay exception.