How to Fix a Name Mismatch on a California Bank Levy | CCP § 680.135

Aerial view of rugged coastal mountains and ocean shoreline.

The Name Mismatch Trap: Why Your California Bank Levy is Missing the Account

Most levy failures are obvious: wrong bank, no funds, or poor timing. But there’s a more frustrating failure point that only surfaces after the levy is served: the name on your Writ of Execution does not match the name on the account.

In California judgment enforcement, “close enough” doesn’t count. To a bank, a minor discrepancy isn’t a typo—it’s a legal barrier. If the names aren’t an exact match, the levy fails to reach the money.

The Corporate Identity Gap

This problem is most prevalent with business debtors. A judgment might be entered under one version of a company’s name, while the operating account sits under another.

  • The Creditor’s View: “It is obviously the same business.”
  • The Bank’s View: “The legal entities do not match; therefore, we cannot freeze the funds.”

In practice, businesses often use variations across contracts, pleadings, and banking. A contract might use a shortened name, the complaint another, and the final judgment reflects whatever version survived the litigation. Meanwhile, the bank account might include “Inc.” or “LLC,” or use a Doing Business As (DBA) name that never appeared in the court file.

Banks Are Not Fact-Finders

Banks and levying officers do not make “judgment calls” about identity. They are in the business of matching strings of text. When the name on the Writ of Execution (Form EJ-130) differs from the account holder’s name, the bank will not “connect the dots” for you.

You can perform every other step correctly—identifying the bank, issuing the writ, and serving the levy—only to have the asset slip through because of a punctuation mark or a missing suffix.

The Solution: The Affidavit of Identity (CCP § 680.135)

California law provides a specific remedy for this: the Affidavit of Identity under Code of Civil Procedure § 680.135.

This filing allows a judgment creditor to identify additional names or aliases by which the debtor is known. Once the court approves the affidavit, these additional names are added to the Writ of Execution and, where appropriate, the Abstract of Judgment.

Critical Distinction: You are not adding new parties to the judgment. You are aligning the existing judgment with the debtor’s real-world identity in commerce and banking.

Strategic Alignment in Enforcement

An Affidavit of Identity allows you to:

  • Capture common variations of a corporate name.
  • Include DBAs and shortened versions used with bank accounts or payment processors.
  • Ensure the version of the name on the Writ matches the version on the target bank account.

Without updating your paperwork to reflect the debtor’s actual financial footprint, even a technically “correct” levy will fail in practice. This is the technical gap that separates routine collections from complex judgment enforcement.

When to Take Action

The time to file an Affidavit of Identity is before you serve the levy. If you see different names on contracts, invoices, ACH descriptions, or checks, that is your signal to align your paperwork.

At The Grundon Law Firm, we specialize in these procedural nuances to ensure that when a levy hits, it sticks. We turn paper judgments into liquid recovery by anticipating these “identity gaps” before they cost our clients money.

Collecting from a Dissolved Corporation in California

Two professionals exchanging documents over a table with a Justice Lady statue.

A common frustration for judgment creditors is learning—often after spending significant time and money litigating—that the defendant corporation has “shut down.” Checks stop coming, phones go unanswered, and the California Secretary of State lists the entity as dissolved or inactive.

The assumption is usually the same: the money is gone and the case is over.

That assumption is often wrong.

Under California law, dissolution does not wipe out corporate debts. In many cases, dissolution actually opens the door to additional judgment-enforcement remedies, particularly where corporate assets were distributed to shareholders or insiders without first paying creditors.

Dissolution Does Not End Corporate Existence or Liability

Under California law, dissolution does not immediately terminate a corporation’s existence or extinguish its liabilities. Instead, dissolution triggers a statutory wind-up period during which the corporation continues to exist for limited purposes, including paying debts, resolving claims, and distributing assets. (Corp. Code, § 2010.)

California courts have long recognized that dissolution is not a defense to liability. Actions against a dissolved corporation do not abate simply because dissolution paperwork has been filed, and creditors may continue to pursue claims during the wind-up process.

From an enforcement standpoint, dissolution changes the mechanics of collection—not the obligation to pay. In many cases, creditors shift from traditional collection tools to more advanced remedies described in our overview of judgment enforcement in California.

Creditors Have Priority Over Shareholders During Dissolution

California’s statutory scheme is explicit: creditors come first.

A corporation may not distribute assets to shareholders unless and until all known debts and liabilities have been paid or adequately provided for. (Corp. Code, § 2004.) As part of dissolution, the corporation must certify that this requirement has been satisfied. (Corp. Code, § 1905.)

Courts enforce this priority strictly. Corporate assets distributed during dissolution remain subject to an equitable charge in favor of creditors, and shareholders take those assets subject to outstanding corporate debts. Dissolution does not convert corporate property into shareholder property free and clear of creditor claims. (Zinn v. Bright (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 188.)

Shareholders May Be Personally Liable for Improper Distributions

California Corporations Code section 2011 provides a direct statutory remedy when shareholders receive corporate assets during dissolution while debts remain unpaid. In that circumstance, a creditor may enforce its claim directly against the shareholder, up to the amount of assets received.

This liability is capped—but it is real and enforceable. (Corp. Code, § 2011.)

Section 2009 supplies the enforcement mechanism. When assets are distributed during wind-up without first paying or providing for debts, those distributions may be recovered in an action brought in the name of the corporation by one or more creditors. These claims frequently overlap with the remedies discussed in our article on asset recovery and fraudulent transfer.

No Fraud or Alter Ego Showing Is Required

A common misconception is that creditors must prove fraud or alter ego to pursue shareholders after dissolution. That is not the case.

Liability under sections 2009 and 2011 does not require proof of fraud, bad intent, or abuse of the corporate form. Liability flows from a simpler fact: the shareholder received corporate assets while known claims remained unpaid.

The California Supreme Court has confirmed that distributing corporate assets with knowledge of unpaid claims creates liability even in the absence of fraudulent intent. (Hoover v. Galbraith (1972) 7 Cal.3d 519.)

During dissolution, corporate assets function as a trust fund for creditors, and shareholders who receive those assets prematurely may be required to return them.

Successor Liability When the Business Continues Under a New Name

Dissolution issues frequently overlap with successor liability, particularly where the business continues operating through a new corporate shell.

California courts recognize exceptions to the general rule of non-liability where the successor entity is a mere continuation of the prior business or where the transaction constitutes a de facto merger. (Ray v. Alad Corp. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 22.)

Courts focus on substance over form, examining continuity of ownership or management, continuation of the same operations or customer base, use of the same sales channels or payment infrastructure, and the absence of adequate consideration for transferred assets. (Quemetco Inc. v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 494; Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 82.)

Where the same enterprise continues while creditors remain unpaid, courts will impose successor liability to prevent injustice—particularly where restructuring occurs during litigation or after judgment. (Cleveland v. Johnson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1315.)

In these cases, successor liability is often pursued alongside tools such as assignment orders against business income and judgment liens on pending lawsuits.

Strategic Note: Alter Ego Is Not the Default Remedy

In dissolution cases, statutory shareholder liability and successor liability often provide cleaner and more direct paths to recovery than alter ego claims.

Alter ego may still be appropriate in certain cases, particularly where assets were never formally distributed or where commingling obscures ownership. But it should not be treated as the default approach. Effective enforcement starts with the remedies the law makes easiest to prove.

Conclusion

A dissolved corporation is not necessarily a dead end. In many cases, it is the beginning of a different—and often more effective—phase of collection.

If assets were distributed without paying creditors, shareholders may be required to return them. If the business continues under a new name, liability may follow. Dissolution does not erase obligations—it simply changes the path a creditor takes to enforce them.

Collecting a California Civil Judgment Utilizing a Lien on a Pending Lawsuit

Legal document and gavel for civil judgment collection in California.

Here’s the scenario: You’ve just won a civil judgment and you’re trying to find the quickest most efficient way to collect your judgment. If your research reveals that the judgment debtor is suing someone else, you have a valuable opportunity to leverage their potential recovery. A lesser known but powerful tool for judgment collection in California is placing a lien on a pending lawsuit.

What is a Judgment Lien?

Authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure 708.410, a judgment lien is a legal claim that attaches to a debtor’s interest in the lawsuit they are in the middle of.   Once properly filed a served, you have attached any recovery they might obtain on the lawsuit and the debtor cannot settle or dismiss their lawsuit without your consent as the lienholder.

Steps to Place a Lien on a Pending Lawsuit in California:

  1. Obtain a Certified Copy of the Judgment: Request a certified copy of your judgment or abstract of judgment from the court clerk. This will be required when filing your lien.
  2. Prepare a Notice of Lien: The Notice of Lien must include the following information:
    • Name and address of the judgment debtor
    • Name and address of the judgment creditor
    • Amount of the judgment
    • Name and address of the court that issued the judgment
    • Date of the judgment
  3. File the Notice of Lien: File the Notice of Lien with the court where the debtor’s pending lawsuit is located.
  4. Serve the Notice of Lien: Ensure the Notice of Lien is properly served on the debtor and all other parties involved in the pending lawsuit.

If you’re a judgment creditor in California and your debtor has a pending lawsuit, placing a lien on that lawsuit can be a strategic move to secure the money you’re owed.

Levy a Domain in California

Digital data streams representing legal cybersecurity in California.

ENTER THE MATRIX AND LEVY INTANGIBLE PROPERTY LIKE DOMAINS USING A THIRD PARTY LEVY WITH A WRIT OF EXECUTION

You’ve obtained a judgment and your debtor has a business website. Can you levy on a domain name? The answer is yes, if the domains registrar has a California agent for service of process. Here’s how:

STEP 1: FIGURE OUT WHO THE DOMAIN IN REGISTERED WITH

There are several tools you can us to accomplish this. I like this one.

STEP 2: FIND THEIR AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

Once you have determined who it is registrered with you need to see if that company has an agent for service of process in California. You can use the California Secretary of State business search to find this information.

STEP 3: OBTAIN A WRIT OF EXECUTION IN THE COUNTY THEIR AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IS LOCATED.

A domain is intangible property. You can levy intangible property in California using a writ of execution. Make sure you’ve added all the post judgment costs and interest you are entitled to by filing a memorandum of costs at least 10 days prior to requesting the writ of execution.

STEP 4: PREPARE AND SUBMIT A THIRD PARTY LEVY IN THE COUNTY WHERE THEIR AGENT IS LOCATED.

In some counties you can prepare the levy and send it to the sheriff for service. In some countines (notably Bay Area counties) the sheriff’s department does not serve levies. In those counties you must open a levy with the sheriff’s office and hire a private process server to actually serve the levy on the domain registrar’s agent. Sacramento county, where a good number of companies have their agent has levy instructions form from the sheriff’s website. You must provide instructions, the writ of execution and the fee for the levy to the sheriff. Each county has different requirements so check with them directly to confirm exactly what you need to submit.

STEP 5: MAKE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE REGISTRAR TO TRANSFER THE DOMAIN

Once the levy is served on the registrar make contact with them about transferring the domain either for sale or your own use. If the registrar does not respond to the levy further action may be necessary.

Levying intangible property can be challenging. Contact us today if you need help executing on your judgment.

COLLECT FROM A LICENSED CONTRACTOR

Construction workers climbing a ladder at a work site.

TO COLLECT FROM A CONTRACTOR

There are many contractors you can trust.  I know a great pool contractor, Zier Pools led Jay Zier and Gerry Hernandez.  You can check them out at Zier Pools  Unfortunately, not all contractors are as good and trustworthy as them.   Check out Adam Carolla’s show https://www.spike.com/shows/catch-a-contractor to see some examples. When things go bad and you obtain a judgment against a licensed contractor, the law provides some leverage. A judgment against a contractor which is construction-related (the law gives a very broad definition of construction related) that is not paid within 90 days can result in the contractor’s license being suspended pursuant to Business and Professions Code §7071.17. Suspension of a contractor’s license means that the contractor can’t work legally.   The suspension isn’t automatic you have to take some action to make it happen.  It is significant leverage to get your judgment paid in a timely fashion.

Contact my office HERE today if you have a judgment against a licensed contractor.

THE POWER OF CONTEMPT TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS

Image of a prison cell corridor with metal bars and dim lighting.

By Bryan Grundon

Can you go to jail for unpaid debt? Behind bars for skipping out on your bills? Technically, imprisonment for unpaid debt is unconstitutional.  In fact, the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act specifically prohibits debt collectors from threatening seizure of property or imprisonment on civil matters unless the ability to take such action is lawful and the creditor intends to take such action.

Because, just like life, with the Constitution and laws, there are caveats, and one or more of those may be the reason you, or someone you know, ended up locked behind bars.  

From employers refusing to pay employees to “deadbeat dads” skipping out on child support, the court has held that these individuals are in contempt of court and thus imprisoned for failing to pay debts.

In a 1948 California case involving employer Walter Trombley, the court held that an employer who willfully refuses to pay his employers, even though he has the ability to do so, could be held in contempt.

Imprisonment for debt was also addressed in Bradley v. Superior Court, a 1957 case in which a husband failed to pay spousal support to his ex-wife. In Bradley, the court stated that family support obligations did not constitute as normal debt and therefore did not fall under the constitutional prohibition of imprisonment for debt.

In Moss v. Superior, the father was ordered to pay child support based on a projected gross monthly income, since he was unemployed at the time of the court order. Yet, the mother claimed that he willfully refused to seek employment and was thus in violation of the court order.

The court held that the prohibition of debtor’s prison did not bar the court from finding the father in contempt of court and imposing jail time because the father had the ability to pay but willfully ignored the child support order.

In all of these cases there’s an underlying theme: the individual was aware of a court order requiring they pay a certain amount and chose to willfully ignore the order. Therefore, they were subject to the punishments reserved for contempt of court.

Our office has handled matters where a judgment debtor willfully refused to comply with a court’s order.  In one such case, we had obtained a money judgment on a promissory note secured by a Mercedes, and the judgment included an order directing the judgment debtor to turn over possession of the Mercedes. We served a copy of the Judgment on our debtor. He did not turn over the car so we sought the court’s help in enforcing the judgment. The court set an order to show cause for the judgment debtor on contempt. When the debtor failed to appear for the hearing the court found the judgment debtor in contempt order him to spend 7 days in jail if he did not comply with the court’s order within thirty days. On day 29 I arrived at the office to find a Mercedes key in the mail slot and the Mercedes parked in the lot.

Do you have a judgment that seems uncollectable? We can help you find that individual, serve them and bring them to court. Contact Bryan M. Grundon today.

THE DETECTIVE ASPECT OF COLLECTING

Detective examining evidence with magnifying glass in a legal investigation scene.

By The Grundon Law Firm of The Grundon Law Firm on Thursday, May 22, 2014.

Inspector Lawyer: The Detective Aspect of Collecting

One woman made a break for it and took out her garbage. Another debtor attempted to pull out of his garage. And one man was attending a social event, chatting with friends and sipping drinks.

Detective examining evidence with magnifying glass in a legal investigation scene.

All of these individuals unsuccessfully avoided the process server and were eventually personally served with an order to appear for a judgment debtor’s exam, a slam-dunk for anyone attempting to collect on a judgment.

When you have obtained a judgment you can seek an order for the judgment debtor to appear in court and answer questions about their assets. Forcing judgment debtors to appear in court and reveal where they work and bank, where their spouse works and banks, and what property they own is one of the many ways to collect on a judgment.  

Unlike regular service of process, debtor’s exams must be personally served, which can make them a bit of a challenge. Yet, knocking down that barrier is possible if you employ a variety of detective-esque tactics.

Finding a current address is the most obvious first step. Simply looking through the white pages or Googling a name doesn’t always reveal an accurate address, particularly with seasoned debtors who are adept at hiding their whereabouts.

Donning our detective caps, we use a specialty database that pulls from recent utility records, work information, real property holdings, criminal records and a variety of other information to sniff out a current address. If this background check fails to lead to any viable addresses, we’ll continue snooping around by running an address skip.

Once an address for that sneaky debtor is discovered we’ll send it out with a process server. For some, the prospect of a debtor’s exam is the last straw, they cede defeat and pick up the phone, offering to settle.

Yet, there are still many debtors who would rather slink out of their homes in the dead of night than spend a day in court detailing their finances. And they will do all in their power to avoid service. That doesn’t mean we call it a day. Setting up stake-outs, wherein the process server waits outside the debtor’s home, often results in successful service. After all, that garbage will eventually get stinky.


Contact Bryan Grundon today to see how he can help you track down that sneaky debtor.