Filed 4/11/17 Morgan v. Green CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


TIMOTHY J. MORGAN,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SUSANA GREEN,

Defendant and Appellant.
H041244
(Santa Cruz County
Super. Ct. No. CV145349)


Respondent Timothy J. Morgan is the judgment creditor of appellant Susana Green. Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to vacate renewal of the judgment. We affirm the order.

I. Procedural Background
On December 23, 2003, a money judgment was entered against appellant in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $18,893.26.
On December 12, 2013, respondent filed an application for renewal of the judgment. After subtracting credits after judgment and adding interest after judgment as well as the fee for filing the renewal, the total renewed judgment was $25,786.38.
On March 17, 2014, notice of renewal of the judgment and application for and renewal of the judgment was served on appellant.
On May 2, 2014, appellant filed a notice of motion to vacate renewal of the judgment. Appellant attached a declaration and various exhibits.
On June 27, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to vacate renewal of the judgment. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and on substantive grounds. The trial court also denied appellant’s peremptory challenge to the trial judge, because it was made after the judge had announced her tentative decision to deny appellant’s motion.

II. Discussion
The period that a judgment remains enforceable may be extended for 10 years by the filing of an application for renewal. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 683.020, 683.130.) “[R]enewal does not create a new judgment or modify the present judgment. Renewal merely extends the enforceability of the judgment.” (Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1489.) After a judgment is renewed, the judgment debtor has 30 days after service of the notice of renewal to move to vacate the renewal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170, subd. (b).)
Here, appellant was served with notice of renewal of the judgment and application for and renewal of the judgment on March 17, 2014. Appellant filed the motion to vacate renewal of the judgment on May 2, 2014, which was more than 30 days after service of the notice of renewal of the judgment. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion as untimely.
Appellant, who is representing herself, has raised several issues. She contends: (1) the trial court “erred in allowing my constitutional rights to be violated, when it decided to allow the [respondent] in a fiduciary position to use[] the Marsden Formula”; (2) the trial court erred, because “[t]he lien is over ten years old and not once did [respondent] contact me”; (3) there was “a triable issue as to whether the agreement was induced by [respondent’s] material misrepresentations”; and (4) respondent “acted in violation of the criminal statutes.” However, none of appellant’s contentions relate to the timeliness of her motion to vacate the renewal of the judgment.
Appellant’s request for damages, attorney’s fees, and other costs is denied, since there is no basis on which to award damages, attorney’s fees, and other costs.

III. Disposition
The order is affirmed.





















_________________________________
Mihara, J.



WE CONCUR:






______________________________
Elia, Acting P. J.






______________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.