## Facts

- A lender obtained an approximately $9 million judgment against the borrower and a related individual/entity, and the judgment preserved the lender’s contractual right to seek postjudgment attorney’s fees.
- Over nearly two years, the lender incurred more than $3 million in attorney’s fees attempting to enforce the judgment, largely through separate litigation challenging alleged fraudulent transfers and liens.
- The judgment debtors tendered a cashier’s check exceeding the remaining judgment balance plus accrued interest, accompanied by a letter stating the payment satisfied the judgment.
- The lender accepted the cashier’s check but did not immediately deposit it.
- Twelve days after receiving the check, the lender filed a memorandum of costs and motion seeking postjudgment attorney’s fees (including fees from the separate enforcement litigation).
- The next day, the lender deposited the cashier’s check, which was honored.
- The trial court denied the fee motion as untimely under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1), concluding the motion was not filed before the judgment was satisfied in full.

## Issues

1. Whether acceptance of a cashier’s check tendered for the full judgment amount and accrued interest constitutes satisfaction in full, even if the creditor delays depositing the check.
2. Whether a judgment creditor can postpone “satisfaction” by holding a cashier’s check in order to preserve time to seek postjudgment attorney’s fees under rule 3.1700(a)(1).
3. Whether substantial enforcement fees incurred in related litigation alter the timing requirement that postjudgment fee requests be filed before full satisfaction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying postjudgment costs and attorney’s fees.
- The court held the judgment was satisfied in full when the creditor accepted the cashier’s check for an amount exceeding the judgment plus interest.
- Because the creditor filed its postjudgment fee motion after accepting full payment, the motion was untimely under rule 3.1700(a)(1).

## Legal Principles

- Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1), a memorandum of costs (including postjudgment attorney’s fees) must be filed before the judgment is satisfied in full (and no later than two years after entry of judgment).
- A cashier’s check is treated as the equivalent of cash; acceptance of a cashier’s check tendered in an amount sufficient to pay the judgment and accrued interest constitutes payment and satisfaction in full.
- Satisfaction in full turns on the objective effect of tender and acceptance of adequate payment, not the creditor’s subjective intent or decision to delay depositing the instrument.
- Substantive entitlement to contractual attorney’s fees does not extend or override procedural timing limits for seeking postjudgment fees.
- Fees incurred in separate enforcement-related litigation do not change when satisfaction occurs; the creditor must pursue postjudgment fees within the timeframe required by rule 3.1700(a)(1).

## Conclusion

The court held that accepting a cashier’s check sufficient to cover the judgment and accrued interest satisfied the judgment as a matter of law, making a later-filed postjudgment fee motion untimely under rule 3.1700(a)(1).


Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc., 169 Cal. Rptr. 3d 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)