WF Capital, Inc. v. Barkett et al

Filing 63

RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT re Plaintiff's 57 Motion: Plaintiff's motion to renew the judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall, within three days of the date of this Order, submit the filing fee required by RCW 6.17.020(3). Once the filing fee has been paid, the Clerk of Court shall issue a renewed judgment in this matter. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)

Case 2:10-cv-00524-RSL Document 63 Filed 08/19/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

WF CAPITAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.

Cause No. C10-0524RSL
RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

WILLIAM J. BARKETT and LISA
BARKETT,

11

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Renewal of Judgment.”

14

Dkt. # 57. Under Washington law, an application for an order granting an additional ten years

15

during which to execute on a judgment “shall be granted as a matter of right, subject to review

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

only for timeliness, factual issues of full or partial satisfaction, or errors in calculating the
judgment summary amounts.” RCW 6.17.020(3). Having reviewed the submissions of the
parties and the remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows:
(1) The motion was timely filed within ninety days before the expiration of the original
ten-year period.
(2) Defendants argue that the judgment was fully satisfied by the sale of property that had
been held as collateral for the loans at issue. That property, however, provided collateral for a
number of loans, and there is no indication that WF Capital or its successor ever foreclosed on

26
27
28

RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT - 1

Case 2:10-cv-00524-RSL Document 63 Filed 08/19/20 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3

the deeds of trust at issue in this litigation.1
(3) Defendants’ arguments regarding the application and effect of California law were
rejected when the Court determined that Washington law governs this action. Dkt. # 25 at 3-6.

4
5

That determination will not be reconsidered at this late date.

6

(4) Plaintiff’s proposed summary of the judgment amounts is incorrect. At the summary

7

judgment stage, plaintiff sought “entry of judgment in the amount of $14,416,784.68, together

8

with interest through the date of judgment and all reasonable fees and costs incurred in WF

9
10
11
12

Capital’s collection and enforcement of the obligations evidenced in the Guarantees.” Dkt. # 8 at
7. The requested amount included pre-judgment interest through April 20, 2010 at $1,653.87 per
day for the first two loans, combined, and $98.65 per day for the third loan. Judgment was

13

entered on August 3, 2010, and plaintiff is therefore entitled to an additional $182,262.08 in pre-

14

judgment interest. Plaintiff did not, however, seek an award of post-judgment interest at the

15

alleged contractual rate of 36% and did not obtain a judgment adopting that rate. See RCW

16
17
18
19
20
21

4.56.110(1). Plaintiff cannot now seek to amend the judgment under the guise of the renewal
statute. It is entitled to post-judgment interest at the maximum statutory rate of 12%. See RCW
19.52.020(1).
(5) Plaintiff shall, within three days of the date of this Order, submit the filing fee
required by RCW 6.17.020(3).

22
23
24
25

1

27

As described in the summary judgment order, one or both defendants guaranteed payment of
three separate loans, with WF Capital as the payee. The first loan, dated April 16, 2007, was for $9.75
million. The second, dated February 5, 2008, was for $1.15 million. And the third, dated September 30,
2008, was for $650,000. Dkt. # 25 at 1-2.

28

RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT - 2

26

Case 2:10-cv-00524-RSL Document 63 Filed 08/19/20 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to renew the judgment is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part. Once the filing fee required in paragraph 5, above, has been paid,
the Clerk of Court shall issue a renewed judgment in the above-captioned matter as summarized

4
5

herein.

6

Judgment Creditor:

WF Capital, Inc.

7

Judgment Creditor’s Attorneys:

Christopher Wyant, K&L Gates, LLP

8

Judgment Debtors:

William J. Barkett and Lisa Barkett

9

Amount of Original Judgment (including pre-judgment interest):

$14,599,046.76

Amount of Attorney’s Fees and Costs Awarded on 9/17/2010:

$25,113.50

Recoverable Costs Incurred Seeking Renewal:

$400

13

Total Amount of Renewed Judgment:

$14,624,560.26

14

Post-Judgment Interest Rate:

12%

15

Execution on the Renewed Judgment Authorized Until:

August 3, 2030

10
11
12

16
17
18

Dated this 19th day of August, 2020.

A

19

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT - 3