Laura Adair v. Georgios Goulielmos Nomikos

Case Number

25CV04442

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/08/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Plaintiff for Entry of Sister-State Judgment

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Laura Adair: Clark A. Lammers, Herring Imming LLP

For Defendant Georgios Goulielmos Nomikos: Jeralyn Ehlers

RULING

The motion of Plaintiff Laura Adair to enter a sister-state judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.25 is denied without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Laura Adair obtained a judgment of divorce nisi, dated April 19, 2024, and final on July 19, 2024, from the Massachusetts Trial Court, Probate and Family Court Department, against Defendant Georgios Goulielmos Nomikos. The judgment incorporates a separation agreement into the judgment.

On July 8, 2025, Adair filed an application for entry of judgment on a sister-state judgment. According to the application, the amount due on the judgment is the for the division of specific accounts. (Application, attachment 5.) The application also states that “The amounts related to the prospective QDRO have not yet been determined as the QDRO is still pending. The final amount due under the QDRO will be determined once the QDRO is entered.” (Ibid.)

The Clerk of the Court accepted the filing of the application and supporting papers but declined to enter the judgment as requested without judicial review. On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order allowing entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.25.

Defendant Nomikos has not appeared or filed any response to the motion.

Analysis

There is a procedural problem which prevents entry of the sister-state judgment under the Sister State and Foreign Money-Judgments Act (SSFMJA, Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.10 et seq.)

“ ‘[A] sister state judgment is not, by itself, enforceable in California. It is only after the sister state judgment has been made a California judgment that any form of execution or enforcement can be had.’ [Citation.]

“ ‘In response to the constitutional mandate of full faith and credit, the California Legislature enacted [the SSFMJA, which sets forth] several statutory provisions that provide economical and expeditious registration procedures for enforcing sister state money judgments in California. [Citation.] A California judgment can be obtained simply by registering a sister state judgment with the superior Court, thereby avoiding the necessity of bringing a completely independent action here. [Citations.] With certain exceptions, the new judgment has the same effect as an original California money judgment and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]

“In California, pursuant to the SSFMJA, in a special proceeding ‘[a] judgment creditor may apply for the entry of a judgment based on a sister state judgment by filing an application pursuant to Section 1710.20.’ (§ 1710.15, subd. (a).) ‘An application for entry of a judgment based on a sister state judgment shall be filed in a superior Court.’ (§ 1710.20, subd. (a).) ‘[T]he clerk shall enter a judgment based upon the application for the total of the following amounts as shown therein: [¶] (1) The amount remaining unpaid under the sister state judgment. [¶] (2) The amount of interest accrued on the sister state judgment (computed at the rate of interest applicable to the judgment under the law of the sister state). [¶] (3) The amount of the fee for filing the application for entry of the sister state judgment.’ (§ 1710.25, subd. (a).)

“As this Court previously explained, the entry of a sister state judgment by the clerk is a ministerial, not a judicial, act, and the SSFMJA ‘simply permits the registration of a sister state judgment so it may be enforced against property located in this state. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] An application for entry of a sister state judgment under the SSFMJA is not the exclusive means to enforce the sister state judgment in California. As an alternative, such enforcement may be sought through a traditional lawsuit. (§ 1710.60.)” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 837–838.)

Similar to the Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL, Code Civ. Proc., § 680.010 et seq.), the SSFMJA defines a “sister state judgment” as “that part of any judgment, decree, or order of a Court of a state of the United States, other than California, which requires the payment of money, but does not include a support order as defined in Section 155 of the Family Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.10, subd. (c); accord, § 680.270 [“ ‘Money judgment’ means that part of a judgment that requires the payment of money.”].)

As presented to the Court, the Massachusetts judgment is not a “money judgment” and hence not a “sister state judgment” subject to the SSFMJA. “A money judgment ‘must be stated with certainty and should specify the amount.’ [Citation.]” (Kittle v. Lang (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 604, 612; accord, Estate of Kampen (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 971, 986.) The portion of the Massachusetts judgment that is sought to be domesticated by this motion does not require the payment of money per se. The portions that Plaintiff identifies (Application, attachment 5; Lammers decl., p. 7) states only that “the following accounts shall be equalized between the parties as of the date of the Judgment of Divorce Nisi” with balances given as of December 2023 or January 2023. (Massachusetts Judgment, p. 18.) In other words, the portion of the Massachusetts Judgment sought to be domesticated as California judgment does not command the payment of a specific amount of money to the Plaintiff. (See Estate of Kampen, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 986–987 [probate order for distribution not a “money judgment” enforceable as such under the EJL because order was in an inexact amount that was not fixed and ascertainable and because it was only an order of distribution rather than for payment of money].)

Because the Massachusetts Judgment sought to be domesticated is not a judgment for the payment of money within the meaning of the SSFMJA, the Court cannot domesticate the judgment under the SSFMJA. Either the Massachusetts Judgment must be reduced to a money judgment within the meaning of the SSFMJA (by whatever procedures are available in Massachusetts) or enforcement must be by means of an action to enforce the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.65.)