Hill v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
MARILYN JO HILL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County
- Trial judge
- David B. Moon, Jr.
- Outcome
- affirmed — The order is affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Daniel J. Kremer (author)
Analysis
The trial court granted Pacific's motion to compel Hill to acknowledge satisfaction of judgment, finding that the postjudgment interest rate under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010 was 7 percent until December 31, 1982, and 10 percent thereafter. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, holding that the effective date of the 10 percent rate was January 1, 1983, not January 1, 1982, as previously suggested in dicta.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order compelling plaintiff to comply with defendant's demand for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment based on the calculation of postjudgment interest.“The trial court correctly determined the postjudgment interest rate under section 685.010 to be 10 percent after December 31, 1982.” | unclear | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: American National Bank v. Peacock (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1206 — The effective date of Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010's 10 percent interest rate was January 1, 1983, due to a legislative oversight regarding the apparent January 1, 1982 date.
- relied: Gutierrez v. State Ranch Services (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 83 — The court treated the language in this case suggesting a January 1, 1982 effective date as dicta not founded on rigorous analysis.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it relies on the specific legislative history analysis in American National Bank v. Peacock to resolve the statutory ambiguity regarding the effective date of the interest rate change. It correctly distinguishes the prior conflicting dicta in Gutierrez, ensuring the application of the law aligns with the legislature's actual intent as determined by the more recent and thorough analysis.
The trial court granted Pacific Telephone's motion compelling Hill to acknowledge satisfaction of a May 1981 judgment, finding that postjudgment interest under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010 accrued at 7 percent through December 31, 1982 and at 10 percent only thereafter. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that American National Bank v. Peacock settled that the statute's 10 percent rate took effect January 1, 1983, and that contrary language in Gutierrez v. State Ranch Services was dicta.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order granting Pacific's motion to compel acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, based on the finding that the section 685.010 postjudgment interest rate was 7 percent through December 31, 1982 and 10 percent afterwards.“The trial court correctly determined the postjudgment interest rate under section 685.010 to be 10 percent after December 31, 1982.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The only question was the effective date of section 685.010's 10 percent rate, a pure question of statutory interpretation. The court followed American National Bank v. Peacock, which examined the legislative history and concluded the apparent January 1, 1982 effective date was a legislative oversight and the intended date was January 1, 1983. The court also addressed Hill's reliance on Gutierrez by characterizing the contrary language as dicta. The opinion does not itself recite the legislative history or explain in detail why the Gutierrez language was dicta, but it identifies the controlling published authority and applies it, and nothing in the opinion suggests the trial court's computation was otherwise mistaken. |
Authorities
- relied: American National Bank v. Peacock (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1206 — Based on legislative history, the 10 percent postjudgment interest rate of Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010 took effect January 1, 1983; the apparent January 1, 1982 effective date was a legislative oversight.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion answers Hill's single contention by following the one published decision that squarely analyzed the effective date of section 685.010 and explains why the contrary authority she cited does not control. It is brief and does not independently recount the legislative history or elaborate on why the Gutierrez language is dicta, but the result and reasoning are consistent with the cited authority.
Opinion — Kremer
Opinion
KREMER, P. J.Plaintiff Marilyn Jo Hill appeals an order granting defendant Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company’s (Pacific) motion compelling Hill to comply with Pacific’s demand for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. 1
I
In May 1981 the superior court entered judgment favoring Hill against Pacific. In October 1983 Pacific paid the judgment plus postjudgment interest. Pacific calculated the postjudgment interest at 7 percent annually from May 1981 through December 31, 1982, and at 10 percent annually from January 1, 1983 to October 21, 1983.
Hill accepted payment but claimed the payment did not satisfy the judgment because postjudgment interest should have been calculated at 10 percent after December 31, 1981. Pacific asked the court for an order compelling Hill to comply with its demand for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.
After hearing, the court found the postjudgment interest rate under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010 2 was 7 percent through December 31, 1982 and 10 percent afterwards. The court ordered Hill to comply with Pacific’s demand for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Hill appeals.
II
Hill contends under section 685.010 the postjudgment interest rate was 10 percent on and after January 1, 1982.
*1078 The issue of section 685.010’s effective date was settled in American National Bank v. Peacock (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1206 [212 Cal.Rptr. 97]. Following a review of the legislative history, the court determined the section’s apparent effective date of January 1, 1982 was, in fact, a legislative oversight and the actual and legislatively intended effective date was January 1, 1983. Language to the contrary in Gutierrez v. State Ranch Services (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 83, 88-89 [198 Cal.Rptr. 16], relied upon by Hill, is dicta and not founded upon the rigorous analysis of American National Bank, supra.
The trial court correctly determined the postjudgment interest rate under section 685.010 to be 10 percent after December 31, 1982.
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
Butler, J., and Lewis, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- American National Bank v. Peacock F003696 · 1985-03-22
- Gutierrez v. State Ranch Services Civ. 22997 · 1983-12-22