Why is CCP § 724.050 judgment satisfaction acknowledgment compulsion pure Ketchum with no federal equivalent, and how does this affect the fee petition multiplier analysis?

California CCP § 724.050 judgment satisfaction acknowledgment compulsion is PURE KETCHUM — the full Ketchum v. Moses (24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001)) contingency multiplier is available on the § 724.050 lodestar without any Dague constraint — because there is no federal analog to California's § 724.050 procedure that would create a Ketchum/Dague split requiring Hensley segregation. In federal district courts, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 62.1 provide mechanisms for post-judgment relief, and 28 U.S.C. § 1963 governs registration of federal judgments in other districts — but no federal provision imposes a 15-day acknowledgment-of-satisfaction mandate with a mandatory attorney fee sanction for failure to comply. The only potentially concurrent federal hook is where the underlying judgment was a federal judgment domesticated in California under CCP § 1710.10 et seq. (the Sister-State Money-Judgments Act) and the judgment debtor pays the domesticated California judgment — in that scenario, the § 724.050 acknowledgment obligation applies to the California domesticated version of the federal judgment, and the attorney fee award under § 724.050 is still exclusively California law, still pure Ketchum. The practical significance for the Ketchum multiplier analysis: § 724.050 matters are typically taken on a flat fee or hourly basis (not contingency) because the issue — compelling acknowledgment of a paid judgment — is bounded and discrete. However, when a judgment debtor who paid a large money judgment (e.g., a $500,000 deficiency judgment following foreclosure, or a $250,000 personal injury judgment) retained counsel under a contingency arrangement specifically to pursue the satisfaction acknowledgment and to use the failure-to-acknowledge as leverage in associated collection harassment or credit-reporting dispute claims, the Ketchum multiplier could apply. Missouri v. Jenkins (491 U.S. 274 (1989)) fees-on-fees: all attorney time preparing the § 724.050 motion and fee petition is recoverable.

California Attorney Fee Petition Mechanics — CCP § 724.050

California Judgment Satisfaction Acknowledgment Compulsion Attorney Fee Petition Mechanics: Tyler Odyssey Post-Judgment Motion Filing Date as Primary Welch Anchor, CCP § 724.050 Mandatory Fees When Creditor Refuses to Acknowledge Paid Judgment

Q: What exactly does CCP § 724.050 require, and when does the court's mandatory attorney fee obligation arise?

California Code of Civil Procedure § 724.050 establishes the procedure by which a judgment debtor can compel a judgment creditor to formally acknowledge that a money judgment has been fully satisfied. The statute works as follows: After a money judgment has been paid in full, the judgment debtor may serve the judgment creditor with a written demand requesting that the creditor execute and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Under CCP § 724.050(b), the creditor must execute and deliver the acknowledgment within 15 days after receiving the demand if the creditor is the original plaintiff judgment creditor, or within 15 days if the creditor is an assignee. If the judgment creditor fails to comply within the 15-day window, CCP § 724.050(d) provides that the debtor may apply to the court on noticed motion for an order requiring the creditor to comply. Under CCP § 724.050(e), 'the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the judgment debtor' if the court finds that: (1) the judgment has been satisfied; and (2) the creditor failed to comply with the demand within the time specified in the statute. The mandatory 'shall award' language means the attorney fee award is not discretionary — once the court finds that the judgment was satisfied and the creditor refused to timely acknowledge it, the fee award is required. The attorney fees cover the attorney's time spent drafting the demand letter, documenting proof of payment, filing the Tyler Odyssey motion to compel, briefing the § 724.050 mandatory fee standard, and appearing at the hearing — all of which is billed after the underlying judgment was already paid.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 724.050 provides that when a judgment debtor fully pays a money judgment and serves the judgment creditor with a written demand for an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, and the judgment creditor fails to execute and deliver the acknowledgment within 15 days after service of the demand, the judgment debtor may apply to the court on noticed motion for an order requiring compliance — and the court SHALL award reasonable attorney fees to the judgment debtor if the court finds that the judgment was satisfied and the creditor failed to timely comply. The primary Welch anchor for the § 724.050 attorney fee petition is the Tyler Odyssey post-judgment motion-to-compel-acknowledgment filing date — THE ONLY Welch anchor in the entire fee-petition-mechanics series established by a post-judgment enforcement motion filed AFTER the underlying judgment debt has already been paid and fully satisfied — the only Welch anchor in the series where the underlying liability dispute is resolved and the attorney's billable work begins at a discrete post-payment enforcement event. This is structurally distinct from every other primary Welch anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series: the complaint filing date (which begins a new action), the regulatory notice date (which precedes the court action), the discovery sanctions motion date (which occurs during active litigation), and the arbitration hearing date (which occurs before judgment) — § 724.050 is the only provision where the Welch anchor is set after the case is over and the money has changed hands. California CCP § 724.050 is PURE KETCHUM — no federal statute imposes an equivalent 15-day acknowledgment-of-satisfaction mandate with mandatory attorney fees for noncompliance; the Ketchum contingency multiplier is available on the § 724.050 lodestar without any Dague constraint or Hensley segregation. Three identifiable billing gaps — the demand letter and proof-of-payment documentation phase, the Tyler Odyssey motion preparation and briefing phase, and the § 724.050 fee petition and mandatory vs. discretionary analysis — total approximately 16.68 untracked billable hours per year, equal to $5,005–$8,342 annually at median California solo practitioner rates of $300–$500 per hour.

TL;DR

CCP § 724.050 provides MANDATORY attorney fees (SHALL award) to judgment debtors who must compel creditors to acknowledge already-paid judgments. Primary Welch anchor: Tyler Odyssey post-judgment motion-to-compel-acknowledgment filing date — THE ONLY Welch anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series set after the underlying judgment is fully paid and satisfied; the only anchor where the attorney's billable work begins at a post-payment enforcement event rather than at a complaint, regulatory notice, or discovery motion. PURE KETCHUM: no federal equivalent mandatory acknowledgment statute; no Ketchum/Dague split; no Hensley segregation required. Three billing gaps total 16.68 hrs = $5,005–$8,342/yr.

Billing Gap 1 — Proof of Payment Documentation, Demand Letter Drafting, and 15-Day Response Monitoring (5.39 hrs/yr = $1,617–$2,695)

The first billing gap arises in the period between the judgment debtor's final payment and the creditor's 15-day response deadline — the window during which the attorney must document the payment, draft the statutory demand, serve it properly, and monitor whether the creditor complies within the statutory period. This period generates billable work at a time when no court proceeding is pending, no phone call "ends" the session, and no calendar event anchors the time — making it structurally prone to undercapture. The specific work includes:

Assembling proof of payment and satisfying the judgment documentation requirement: Before serving the § 724.050 demand, the attorney must compile evidence that the judgment has been fully satisfied: bank records showing the final payment wire or check clearing (Zelle, bank wire, cashier's check from Wells Fargo, Chase, or Bank of America as the paying institution); canceled check or wire confirmation from the judgment debtor's account (SWIFT MT103 wire confirmation or ACH trace number from the debtor's online banking portal); any release or satisfaction documentation signed by the creditor at the time of the final payment installment; and a calculation showing that the total amount paid equals the principal judgment amount plus all post-judgment interest accrued under California law (10% simple interest per year under CCP § 685.010 from the date of entry of judgment through the date of the final payment). Compiling this payment documentation — reviewing bank statements, confirming the wire trace numbers, and calculating the post-judgment interest accrual — requires a focused analytical session generating untracked billing time from the date of the final payment.
Drafting the CCP § 724.050 written demand and ensuring statutory compliance: The written demand served on the judgment creditor must comply with specific requirements: it must state the amount of the judgment, the date of entry, and request that the creditor execute and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment (Judicial Council Form EJ-100, Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment) within 15 days after service of the demand. If the judgment was assigned, the demand must be served on the assignee rather than the original creditor — identifying the current judgment creditor requires checking the Tyler Odyssey court file for any filed assignment of judgment or order granting application to enforce judgment under CCP § 708.410. Drafting the demand, verifying the correct creditor to serve, confirming the service method (personal service, certified mail, or electronic service under CCP § 1010.6 if the creditor has appeared through Tyler Odyssey), and confirming the proof of service documentation — each generating billable time in discrete short sessions that have no natural ending point and are therefore prone to undercapture.
Monitoring the 15-day response period and documenting the creditor's non-compliance: After serving the § 724.050 demand, the attorney must track the 15-day response period (calculated from the date of service under CCP § 1013 for mail or the service date for personal delivery), monitor whether the creditor delivers the executed Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (Form EJ-100) within the period, and document the non-compliance for use in the Tyler Odyssey motion. This monitoring generates brief, time-intensive sessions — checking the file for receipt of an acknowledgment, noting the response deadline in the calendar, drafting the declaration of non-receipt once the period expires — that are individually short (5–15 minutes each) but cumulatively represent a significant untracked billing total across a calendar year's worth of § 724.050 matters in a busy collection defense or judgment enforcement practice.

Gap 1 Annual Value (proof of payment documentation, § 724.050 demand drafting & 15-day non-compliance monitoring)

$1,617–$2,695/yr

7 clients × 2 documentation sessions × 55 min × 55% untracked ≈ 5.39 hrs/yr at $300–$500/hr median solo rate

The Tyler Odyssey post-judgment motion filing date is the primary Welch anchor that anchors all of the attorney's pre-filing demand and documentation work to the court's institutional calendar. Under Hensley v. Eckerhart (461 U.S. 424 (1983)), all attorney time from the initial proof-of-payment compilation through the Tyler Odyssey motion filing must be documented with contemporaneous billing records. The demand letter date and the 15-day response monitoring period are the pre-filing phase of the § 724.050 lodestar; the Tyler Odyssey motion filing date is the institutional anchor that brackets this pre-filing work and ties it to the court's post-judgment enforcement calendar.

Billing Gap 2 — Tyler Odyssey Post-Judgment Motion Preparation, Briefing, and Mandatory Order Request (7.26 hrs/yr = $2,178–$3,630)

The second billing gap arises from the Tyler Odyssey post-judgment motion to compel acknowledgment — the noticed motion the judgment debtor files with the superior court requesting a court order requiring the creditor to execute and deliver the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment and an order awarding the mandatory attorney fees under § 724.050(e). This motion generates concentrated billable work in the period between the Tyler Odyssey filing date (the primary Welch anchor) and the court hearing date. The specific work includes:

Drafting the Tyler Odyssey motion and supporting declaration documenting proof of payment and demand noncompliance: The § 724.050 motion must include: the moving party's declaration establishing (1) the date and amount of the money judgment entered by the court, confirmed by the Tyler Odyssey case number and judgment entry date; (2) documentation that the judgment was fully paid — payment records, bank confirmations, and the post-judgment interest calculation establishing the total amount paid equals principal plus accrued interest under CCP § 685.010; (3) a copy of the written demand served on the creditor with proof of service; (4) documentation that the creditor failed to deliver the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (Form EJ-100) within 15 days. The judgment entry date in Tyler Odyssey — recorded on the court's institutional calendar entirely outside the debtor's control (the court clerk entered judgment on the court's docket) — serves as the baseline for the post-judgment interest calculation and the proof-of-payment analysis. Drafting this declaration with the payment calculation, assembling the exhibits (bank records, demand letter, proof of service), and preparing the Notice of Motion and Points and Authorities requires a focused drafting session generating untracked billing time from the Tyler Odyssey motion filing date Welch anchor.
Researching the mandatory "shall award" attorney fee standard under § 724.050(e) and distinguishing it from discretionary fee provisions: The Points and Authorities supporting the § 724.050 motion must explain that the attorney fee award under § 724.050(e) is mandatory — "the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees" — not discretionary like many other post-judgment fee provisions. This mandatory standard distinguishes § 724.050 from CCP § 685.040 (court's discretion to award attorney fees as costs of enforcement only if the underlying judgment awards attorney fees or a statute provides for them), from CCP § 708.020 (examination of judgment debtor fees, which are actual costs not attorney fees), and from the general costs-of-enforcement framework. Researching the § 724.050 mandatory fee standard, finding supporting authority confirming the mandatory nature of the award (courts have consistently held that once the court finds the judgment was satisfied and the creditor failed to timely comply, the fee award is not discretionary), and incorporating this analysis into the motion generates focused legal research sessions that accumulate as untracked billing time.
Monitoring Tyler Odyssey for the hearing date, opposing papers, and court calendar changes: After filing the Tyler Odyssey motion, the attorney must monitor the court's electronic docket for: the assigned hearing date (set by the court clerk on the court's calendar entirely outside the attorney's scheduling control); any opposition papers filed by the creditor; any order to show cause issued by the court; and any reassignment of the motion to a different judicial officer. In a busy superior court (Los Angeles, Orange County, Santa Clara, San Diego), § 724.050 motions may be set for hearing 30–60 days after filing; during this window, the attorney's periodic Tyler Odyssey docket checks generate brief but untracked billing increments — each check is short (5–10 minutes) but occurs multiple times per week across a practice handling multiple collection defense matters simultaneously.

Gap 2 Annual Value (Tyler Odyssey motion preparation, § 724.050 mandatory fee standard briefing & hearing monitoring)

$2,178–$3,630/yr

6 clients × 3 motion sessions × 44 min × 55% untracked ≈ 7.26 hrs/yr at $300–$500/hr median solo rate

The Tyler Odyssey post-judgment motion filing date is the primary Welch anchor for the § 724.050 attorney fee petition: the court's institutional calendar begins recording the enforcement proceeding at the moment the motion is filed, creating the contemporaneous record that anchors the motion preparation work, the 15-day pre-filing demand and monitoring period, and the post-filing motion hearing preparation. Under Hensley v. Eckerhart (461 U.S. 424 (1983)), all work from the motion filing date through the court order is recoverable in the § 724.050 fee petition — and the pre-filing demand phase is recoverable as preparatory work that directly enabled the motion.

Billing Gap 3 — CCP § 724.050 Attorney Fee Petition, Mandatory vs. Discretionary Analysis, Ketchum Lodestar Calculation, and Missouri v. Jenkins Fees-on-Fees (4.03 hrs/yr = $1,210–$2,017)

The third billing gap arises from the § 724.050 fee petition itself — establishing the mandatory fee award, briefing the Ketchum lodestar, and recovering fees-on-fees for the petition preparation. The specific work includes:

Briefing the § 724.050 mandatory attorney fee standard and documenting the pre-filing and post-filing lodestar: The § 724.050 fee petition requires a declaration establishing the attorney's reasonable hourly rate (documented using PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000)) market rate methodology — expert declarations from other California solo practitioners or fee arbitration award data establishing the prevailing market rate for collection defense attorneys in the relevant California legal market), and a chronological lodestar accounting covering: (a) pre-demand work (assembling proof of payment, calculating post-judgment interest); (b) demand letter drafting and service; (c) 15-day monitoring period; (d) Tyler Odyssey motion drafting and filing; (e) opposition monitoring; and (f) court hearing preparation. Preparing this lodestar documentation — categorized by phase and tied to the Tyler Odyssey motion filing date as the primary Welch anchor — requires a focused preparation session that itself generates fees recoverable as fees-on-fees under Missouri v. Jenkins (491 U.S. 274 (1989)).
Identifying and addressing creditor arguments against the § 724.050 mandatory award: Creditors who refused to acknowledge satisfaction may argue at the § 724.050 hearing that: (a) the judgment was not fully satisfied (partial payment or disputed interest calculation); (b) the demand was not properly served under CCP § 724.050(b); (c) the 15-day period had not elapsed at the time of the motion; or (d) the attorney fees claimed are unreasonably high. Preparing responses to these arguments — verifying the payment calculation, confirming service compliance under CCP § 1013, confirming the 15-day period elapsed, and establishing the reasonableness of the rate and hours through the PLCM Group market rate analysis — generates focused analytical sessions generating untracked billing time in the period between the Tyler Odyssey hearing date assignment and the actual hearing.
Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees analysis and petition-preparation time recovery: Under Missouri v. Jenkins (491 U.S. 274 (1989)) and its California equivalent, all attorney time spent preparing the § 724.050 fee petition is itself recoverable as fees-on-fees — including the time spent drafting the lodestar declaration, researching the mandatory fee standard, identifying and responding to creditor arguments, and appearing at the fee hearing. In § 724.050 matters, the fees-on-fees recovery is typically modest compared to complex fee petitions (the underlying § 724.050 motion work is bounded and discrete), but the fees-on-fees principle ensures that the attorney is not penalized for bringing a meritorious motion to compel acknowledgment of a paid and satisfied judgment.

Gap 3 Annual Value (§ 724.050 fee petition, Ketchum lodestar documentation & Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees)

$1,210–$2,017/yr

5 clients × 2 fee petition sessions × 44 min × 55% untracked ≈ 4.03 hrs/yr at $300–$500/hr median solo rate

Three Unique Distinctions in the Fee-Petition-Mechanics Series

This page covers the only California attorney fee provision with all three of the following simultaneously:

THE ONLY page in the fee-petition-mechanics series where THE PRIMARY WELCH ANCHOR IS SET BY A POST-JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT MOTION FILED AFTER THE UNDERLYING JUDGMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID AND FULLY SATISFIED — in every other page in the series, the primary Welch anchor marks either the beginning of a civil action (complaint filing date), a pre-litigation regulatory event (OEHHA Clearinghouse notice date, LWDA PAGA notice date), a discovery or sanctions motion during active litigation (§ 128.5 conduct date, § 128.7 motion date after safe harbor, § 2023.030 OSC hearing date), or a post-verdict fee petition in an ongoing case (§ 1021.5, § 1194, § 3426.4, § 25249.7(f)); under § 724.050, the primary Welch anchor is categorically different — the Tyler Odyssey post-judgment motion filing date occurs after the case is over, after the judgment has been entered, and after the judgment debtor has paid the full amount — the attorney's work begins at the Tyler Odyssey motion filing date not because a new controversy has arisen, but because a paid-off creditor has refused to formally acknowledge payment in the court record, creating a discrete enforcement gap that no other provision in the series addresses
THE ONLY page in the fee-petition-mechanics series where THE PRIMARY DEFENDANT (THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR) IS THE PARTY WHO ALREADY WON THE UNDERLYING CASE AND IS NOW BEING SANCTIONED FOR REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE PAYMENT — in every other page in the series, the party against whom attorney fees are sought either: (a) committed the substantive wrong that gave rise to the lawsuit (the wage thief, the fraudulent securities seller, the discriminating employer, the polluter, the lease violator); (b) filed a frivolous lawsuit, motion, or discovery response (§ 128.5, § 128.7, § 437c(j), § 490.020(b) wrongful attachment pages); or (c) failed to cooperate in a regulatory or administrative process; under § 724.050, the party ordered to pay attorney fees is the CREDITOR WHO WON THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT — a party who already prevailed in court, obtained a binding monetary award, collected payment, and is now refusing to execute a simple acknowledgment form acknowledging receipt of the money the court ordered the debtor to pay; this post-payment, post-satisfaction enforcement role is unique in the fee-petition-mechanics series
THE ONLY page in the fee-petition-mechanics series where THE PRIMARY BILLING GAP ARISES FROM A POST-PAYMENT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING REQUIRING THE ATTORNEY TO VERIFY COMPLETE SATISFACTION OF AN ALREADY-ENTERED COURT JUDGMENT — INCLUDING POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST ACCRUAL CALCULATIONS UNDER CCP § 685.010 — BEFORE THE WELCH ANCHOR DATE IS EVEN TRIGGERED — the pre-filing demand phase requires the attorney to calculate exactly how much post-judgment interest has accrued from the judgment entry date (10% per year simple interest on the principal amount under § 685.010, calculated from the Tyler Odyssey judgment entry date), verify that the total payment equals the principal plus accrued interest, and document this calculation in the demand letter — a mathematical verification step using Tyler Odyssey judgment entry dates as calculation anchors that is unique in the fee-petition-mechanics series and exists before the § 724.050 motion filing date Welch anchor is established; no other provision in the series requires the attorney to perform a mathematical verification of prior payment amounts using Tyler Odyssey historical event dates as inputs before the primary Welch anchor can be triggered

PURE KETCHUM — California CCP § 724.050 is exclusively California law with no federal acknowledgment-of-satisfaction mandate; no Ketchum/Dague split; no Hensley segregation required: California CCP § 724.050 has no federal analog. Federal district courts do not impose a statutory mandate that judgment creditors execute and deliver a formal acknowledgment of satisfaction within 15 days with mandatory attorney fee sanctions for non-compliance. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows parties to seek relief from a judgment that has been satisfied, but Rule 60(b) does not create a mandatory acknowledgment requirement with an attorney fee sanction. 28 U.S.C. § 1963 governs registration of federal judgments in other districts but does not address satisfaction acknowledgment. The absence of any federal acknowledgment-of-satisfaction statute means there is no concurrent federal claim that could create a Ketchum/Dague split requiring Hensley segregation — the § 724.050 proceeding is exclusively California state court law, entirely Ketchum-governed, with the full Ketchum v. Moses (24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001)) contingency multiplier available on the post-judgment enforcement lodestar.

Ketchum / Dague Analysis for CCP § 724.050

California CCP § 724.050 — PURE KETCHUM, mandatory "shall award" attorney fees, full Ketchum contingency multiplier available: California CCP § 724.050(e) provides that "the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the judgment debtor" — mandatory language that makes the fee award non-discretionary once the court finds the judgment was satisfied and the creditor failed to timely comply. In California superior court, the § 724.050 mandatory attorney fee award is governed exclusively by Ketchum v. Moses (24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001)): the lodestar base rate is the prevailing market rate for California collection defense and post-judgment enforcement attorneys in the relevant legal market under PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000)). The Ketchum contingency multiplier is available where the attorney represented the judgment debtor on a contingency or risk-based basis — common where the judgment debtor retained counsel specifically to challenge a creditor who has been engaging in aggressive or abusive post-judgment collection tactics and the fee recovery from § 724.050 was the primary mechanism for compensating the attorney for the contested enforcement work.
No federal analog — no Dague constraint, no Hensley segregation required: Because no federal statute provides an equivalent mandatory acknowledgment-of-satisfaction requirement with attorney fee sanctions, there is no concurrent federal proceeding and no Ketchum/Dague split. The § 724.050 attorney fee lodestar is calculated from the Tyler Odyssey motion filing date Welch anchor through the court order granting the motion, without any segregation between California and federal components. Where the underlying judgment was itself a federal judgment registered in California under CCP § 1710.10 et seq. (the Sister-State Money-Judgments Act), the § 724.050 enforcement proceeding remains exclusively California law — the underlying federal judgment is domesticated as a California judgment for enforcement purposes, and the § 724.050 acknowledgment obligation and mandatory fee sanction apply to the California domesticated judgment without any federal law overlay.
Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees for § 724.050 petition preparation time: Under Missouri v. Jenkins (491 U.S. 274 (1989)) and its California application, all attorney time spent preparing the § 724.050 fee petition is itself recoverable — including the lodestar declaration preparation, the PLCM Group market rate analysis, the calculation of post-judgment interest accrual using Tyler Odyssey judgment entry dates, and the briefing of the mandatory vs. discretionary fee standard distinguishing § 724.050 from CCP § 685.040. The fees-on-fees principle recognizes that the legislature's "shall award" language reflects an intent to fully compensate judgment debtors who are forced to return to court after paying a judgment simply to obtain the creditor's formal acknowledgment of receipt.

Total Annual Billing Gap — Three-Gap Summary

Gap 1 (proof of payment documentation, § 724.050 demand drafting & 15-day non-compliance monitoring): 5.39 hrs = $1,617–$2,695/yr
Gap 2 (Tyler Odyssey motion preparation, § 724.050 mandatory fee standard briefing & hearing monitoring): 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/yr
Gap 3 (§ 724.050 fee petition, Ketchum lodestar & Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees): 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/yr
Total: 16.68 hrs = $5,005–$8,342/yr untracked at $300–$500/hr median California solo practitioner rate

These billing gaps accumulate because § 724.050 judgment satisfaction acknowledgment enforcement generates attorney time in concentrated short sessions tied to discrete post-payment events: confirming wire transfer completion from the bank's online portal, drafting the demand letter, monitoring the Tyler Odyssey docket for the response period, filing the motion when the period lapses, reviewing any opposition filed by the creditor in Tyler Odyssey, and preparing for the court hearing. Each session is individually short (10–25 minutes) but billable to the client's § 724.050 matter, and none has a conventional call-ending or calendar-event-beginning structure that triggers automatic billing.

ClaimHour's automatic time capture logs each interaction with the institutional platforms generating the § 724.050 Welch anchor dates: when Tyler Odyssey was accessed to confirm the judgment entry date and calculate post-judgment interest accrual, when the bank's online portal was accessed to document the final payment wire or ACH clearing, when Tyler Odyssey was accessed to file the motion and later to check for opposition or hearing assignment, and when the Tyler Odyssey e-filing confirmation was received — all creating the contemporaneous time records required for a successful § 724.050 mandatory fee award under Hensley v. Eckerhart (461 U.S. 424 (1983)).

How ClaimHour fits California judgment satisfaction acknowledgment § 724.050 practice

ClaimHour captures billable time automatically — email, document editing, browser activity — without requiring a separate practice management system. For solo California attorneys handling post-judgment enforcement matters under CCP § 724.050, that means the proof-of-payment documentation sessions, the Tyler Odyssey demand letter drafting, the 15-day monitoring period, the Tyler Odyssey motion preparation, and the § 724.050 mandatory fee petition lodestar documentation are all captured in the background. When you build the § 724.050 mandatory attorney fee lodestar from the Tyler Odyssey post-judgment motion filing date Welch anchor — the institutional moment the court's post-judgment enforcement calendar began recording the acknowledgment compulsion proceeding — ClaimHour's automatically-logged entries close the gap between what you billed and what you actually did.

Get early access

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary Welch anchor for a California CCP § 724.050 judgment satisfaction acknowledgment compulsion attorney fee petition, and how does it differ from every other Welch anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series?

The primary Welch anchor for a CCP § 724.050 judgment satisfaction acknowledgment compulsion attorney fee petition is the Tyler Odyssey post-judgment motion-to-compel-acknowledgment filing date — THE ONLY Welch anchor in the entire fee-petition-mechanics series set by a post-judgment enforcement motion filed AFTER the underlying judgment debt has already been paid and fully satisfied. In every other page in the series, the Welch anchor marks the beginning of an action, a pre-litigation regulatory notice, or a motion during active litigation. Under § 724.050, the Welch anchor is set after the case is over and the money has changed hands — the attorney's billable work begins at the Tyler Odyssey motion filing date because a paid-off creditor refused to formally acknowledge payment, creating a discrete post-satisfaction enforcement billing period that no other provision in the series covers.

What exactly does CCP § 724.050 require, and when does the court's mandatory attorney fee obligation arise?

After a money judgment is fully paid, the debtor may serve the creditor with a written demand for an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (Judicial Council Form EJ-100). The creditor must comply within 15 days. If the creditor fails to comply, the debtor may file a noticed motion in Tyler Odyssey. Under CCP § 724.050(e), the court SHALL award reasonable attorney fees to the debtor if the court finds: (1) the judgment was satisfied; and (2) the creditor failed to timely comply. The mandatory "shall award" language makes the fee award non-discretionary — once both elements are established, the fee award is required. The award covers all attorney time from the proof-of-payment documentation through the motion, hearing, and fee petition itself (Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees).

Why is CCP § 724.050 pure Ketchum with no federal equivalent, and how does this affect the fee petition multiplier analysis?

California CCP § 724.050 is PURE KETCHUM because no federal statute imposes an equivalent mandatory acknowledgment-of-satisfaction requirement with attorney fee sanctions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows post-judgment relief but creates no mandatory acknowledgment mandate. Without a concurrent federal claim, there is no Ketchum/Dague split and no Hensley segregation requirement. The full Ketchum v. Moses (24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001)) contingency multiplier is available on the § 724.050 lodestar. For the multiplier analysis, relevant factors include: whether the attorney took the matter on risk (the creditor might have argued the judgment was not fully satisfied); the complexity of the post-judgment interest calculation; and whether the creditor's refusal was part of a pattern of post-payment harassment. Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees apply to all petition-preparation time.