Tikosky obtained a large judgment against Yehuda.  Tikosky’s judgment lien on real property Yehuda owned was third in priority.  The title insurer for the party holding the first, fourth and fifth position liens paid Tikosky the amount of the judgment lien to avoid his foreclosing on his judgment lien, which would have eliminated the fourth and fifth liens that totaled more than Tikosky’s judgment lien.  This opinion holds that Tikosky did not have to treat the title insurer’s payment as a satisfaction of his judgment.  While Yehuda only had to pay that judgment once, he had not paid it at all.  Instead, the title insurer paid and not to satisfy the judgment but to avoid a greater loss it would have suffered through foreclosure of the judgment lien.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One (Chaney, J.); January 30, 2018; 2018 WL 619307.