Trusts and Estates
Estate of Casserley
Cite as D072298
Filed April 27, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One
By Daniel C. Kim
Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation
www.weintraub.com
Decedent Norman Casserley and Paul Blazevich were neighbors. In 1997, Decedent was convicted of a crime and ordered to pay Blazevich restitution. Ten years later, Blazevich recorded the order and then obtained an amended order which increased the restitution award. In 2008, Blazevich executed and recorded an assignment of the original (but not the amended) order to his wife Emerita Cruz Joya. The amended order was not recorded until after Casserleyâs death in 2015. Casserley died intestate, and the estateâs only asset was a modest house, which the administrator sold. The estate was insufficient to pay all claims. Joya filed a creditorâs claim based on the initial order, which was allowed and paid, and an amended claim based on the amended order, which the administrator denied. Joya objected to the administratorâs final accounting, arguing that the post-death recordation of the amended order created a lien on all probate assets. She also argued that, under the Constitutionâs restitution provision, her claim to payment of restitution was entitled to priority over other creditorsâ claims filed by the state and county. The trial court rejected both arguments.
The appellate court affirmed both rulings. The recordation of an abstract of judgment after the debtorâs death does not create a lien on the debtorâs estate property and, therefore, the recordation of the amended order did not create a lien on estate assets because it was recorded after Casserleyâs death. Second, the appellate court evaluated the legislative history of the Constitutionâs restitution provision and pertinent statutory schemes and found that the administratorâs sale of the decedentâs house did not constitute âcollection of moneyâ for purposes of the Constitutionâs restitution provision. Therefore, Joyaâs claim did not have priority over other claims.