## Facts

- Gloria J. Lezine and her husband, Henry Lezine, acquired a Los Angeles residence during marriage as community property.
- Henry forged Gloria’s signature on a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer her interest to him, then executed deeds of trust to secure loans, including one to Security Pacific Financial Services, Inc.
- Gloria sued for declaratory relief, quiet title, and cancellation of instruments, alleging forgery and violation of former Civil Code § 5127 (requiring both spouses’ participation to encumber community real property).
- The trial court declared the deeds of trust void under former § 5127, but entered a personal money judgment against Henry in favor of Security Pacific.
- Security Pacific recorded an abstract of judgment, creating a judgment lien in the county where the residence was located.
- In a later dissolution proceeding, the residence was awarded to Gloria as her separate property, and the debt to Security Pacific was assigned to Henry.
- Gloria later obtained a postjudgment order in the quiet title action stating the abstract of judgment did not create a lien against the residence.
- The Court of Appeal reversed that order, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether setting aside a security interest in community real property under former Civil Code § 5127 cancels the underlying debt or the community property’s liability for that debt.
2. Whether a creditor’s judgment lien, created by recording an abstract of judgment against the debtor spouse, may attach to community real property even after the property is later awarded to the nondebtor spouse as separate property in dissolution.
3. Whether a trial court may, through a postjudgment “clarification,” prevent or extinguish a judgment lien that arose from a recorded abstract of judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s determination that Security Pacific’s judgment lien was enforceable against the residence.
- Setting aside the deed of trust under former Civil Code § 5127 did not cancel Henry’s underlying obligation or eliminate the community property’s liability for the debt reduced to judgment.
- Because the abstract of judgment was recorded while the residence was community property and while Henry held an interest subject to enforcement, the lien attached and remained effective despite the later dissolution award to Gloria.
- The trial court exceeded its authority by issuing a postjudgment order purporting to prevent the lien’s attachment or to nullify its effect.

## Legal Principles

- Former Civil Code § 5127 allowed a nonconsenting spouse to set aside an unauthorized encumbrance of community real property, but that remedy does not extinguish the underlying debt or the community estate’s general exposure for marital debts.
- A judgment lien is created by recording an abstract of judgment and attaches to real property interests of the judgment debtor in the recording county as provided by judgment-enforcement law.
- A dissolution court’s allocation of assets and debts generally governs the spouses’ rights and obligations between themselves and does not, without statutory authority, defeat a creditor’s lien rights that have already attached.
- After entry of a money judgment and recordation of the abstract, a trial court cannot materially alter the creditor’s lien rights through a postjudgment “clarification” that functions as a substantive modification.

## Conclusion

The court held that invalidating a unilateral deed of trust on community real property under former Civil Code § 5127 does not eliminate the debt or prevent enforcement against the community estate; thus, a judgment lien recorded against the debtor spouse while the property was community property remains enforceable even after dissolution awards the property to the nondebtor spouse as separate property.


Lezine v. Sec. Pac. Fin. Servs., Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 56 (Cal. 1996)