The filing of a satisfaction of judgment does not render an appeal moot when there is a possibility of restitution or reimbursement; but, because there was no such possibility here, the satisfaction of judgment in this case rendered the proposed intervenors' appeal moot. G Power Investments, LLC initiated a multi-count action against GTherm, Inc., Michael Parrella and Pardev, LLC, alleging, inter alia, that GTherm defaulted on its promissory note for $1 million that Parella had unconditionally guaranteed. The plaintiff sought money damages, foreclosure of pledges of stock and possession of GTherm stock and all patents owned by GTherm and Parrella. In an unrelated prior action, Jerrold Metcoff and David Wilson obtained a judgment against Parella of $2,385,256. They filed judgment lien certificates against Parrella's assets including his shares of stock and patents. Metcoff and Wilson filed a motion to intervene in this action. The trial court denied the motion and rendered judgment in accordance with a stipulation of the parties. Metcoff and Wilson appealed from the denial of their motion to intervene and the judgment. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as moot. There was no practical relief the Appellate Court could grant the proposed intervenors. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff filed a notice of satisfaction of judgment indicating that the judgment was satisfied as to all defendants by virtue of Pardev transferring stock owned by Pardev. Because the proposed intervenors claimed an interest only in Parrella's assets and because no defendant other than Pardev provided payment or consideration to the plaintiff to satisfy the judgment, the satisfaction of judgment rendered moot any interest the proposed intervenors claimed to have in the case. There was no possibility of restitution or reimbursement to the proposed intervenors because their interest in this case was limited to the assets of Parrella that are subject to their judgment liens.

VIEW FULL CASE