Fusci

Fusci v. Burke CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 2016B265727California560 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The parties own land in an unincorporated area of Ventura County known as “Ventavo Ranches I” or “Ventavo Estates.” Their parcels are accessed by a series of private roads over common easements in the community. Most of the property owners formed an unincorporated association, the Ventavo Road Association, to maintain the roadway easements and collect funding to do so. Fusci, who did not participate in the association, filed lawsuits against the other homeowners in the community. The parties entered into various settlement agreements, one of which is the stipulated judgment in this case. The judgment was entered in 2007. Fusci paid the $6,000 referenced in the judgment in 2015. Respondents did not acknowledge Fusci’s purported satisfaction of judgment because he had not paid any post-judgment interest. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 685.020, subd. (a) [“[I]nterest commences to accrue on a money judgment on the date of entry of the judgment”].) Fusci moved for an order requiring them to acknowledge his satisfaction of the judgment, which the trial court denied. The trial court ruled that Fusci owed interest on the sum commencing on the date of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.