A domain name registered by a private person and administered by Network Solutions is intangible property not in the possession of the individual registrant, and therefore is not subject to California procedures for “turnover” orders and seizure of property to enforce a creditor’s judgment, according to a recent decision of a California Court of Appeal.  The court interpreted California law on enforcement of monetary judgments to find that a domain name is not subject to court-ordered turnover or seizure under such laws, which are oriented toward the marshaling and liquidation of property to satisfy money judgments.  The decision may be best understood as indicating that the California judgment enforcement laws are not well suited to domain names, rather than as an ultimate determination of the legal status of domain names generally.  The case is also notable for the Court of Appeal’s dispassionate fairness in ruling in favor of a pro-per litigant and appellant (not represented by counsel), in what is at least his seventh trip to the Court of Appeals over the years in seemingly endless and tiresome litigation over attorneys fees arising ultimately from a personal dispute with a local homeowners association.  (Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Association, Inc. v. McMahon, California Court of Appeal No. G040349, June 16, 2009)

Linked Attorney(s)