Palacio del Mar Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. McMahon, — Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2009 WL 1668294 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. June 16, 2009)
A California state court entered a $40,000 judgment against defendant McMahon in favor of plaintiff homeowners association. The homeowners association tried to collect the money from McMahon, seeking a “turnover” of property McMahon owned. Among the items the homeowners association sought was the domain name ahrc.com, registered in the name of McMahon’s wife.
The trial court permitted the domain name to be turned over to the homeowners association to satisfy the judgment. McMahon sought review with the California Court of Appeal. That court reversed and vacated the turnover order.
The court gave several reasons for reversing the lower court. The most interesting reason, however, dealt with the very nature of domain names. The provision in California law allowing turnover of property limits itself to tangible property that can be “levied upon by taking it into custody.” Looking to the case of Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro International, Inc., 529 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 2000), the court held that a domain name registration is not property, but merely supplies the intangible contractual right to use a unique domain name for a specified period of time. Even if the registration were property, it was not something that could be taken into custody.
June 16, 2009
boo:
At least there's some authority to the contrary. Maybe the court is distinguishing b/w satisfaction and levy (i.e., no turnover but you can always sell)?
Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69774 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2007)
May 20, 2011
And on appeal
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/20…
Sections [6] and [7]
el
June 17, 2009
I seriously doubt there'll ever be some kind of "all-in-one" decision saying domain names are property under any and all circumstances. If anything, certain laws and/or judges can say domain names are so-called property under certain, limited conditions like the two cases mentioned above.
June 18, 2009
Good decision. It appears that the homeowner's association that targeted the McMahons for countless years, finally got its comeuppance. One cannot get blood out of a turnip, it appears it wasn';t enough for the association to take their home–they wanted more, and more, and more. Anyone who sat through these trials and followed them closely at the trial level, would have questioned the myriad of "trumped up charges" with questionable evidence being entered into the record against them. Without belaboring the point, the McMahons are a biracial couple and endured the "unthinkable."
June 19, 2009
Good win for property owners across the country. Our associations is doing the same thing, saying they have a right to a domain we purchased to setup an informational website for the property owners. The associations name is Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, the planned community is Stillwater Lakes Estates so we choose the name stillwaterlakes.net. We were even told by the associations layer at an annual meeting that "anyone can start a website, so start one", so we did. Now that we are informing the property owners about what is going on, they want the site shut down.
Cheers to McMahon.
August 3, 2009
This is completely wrong law — Domain name ARE tangible property that could satisfy judgment
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/kremencohen72503opn.pdf
August 11, 2009
@Steve Syracuse
That decision stated only that domain names are property in that specific situation. It doesn't dictate such under any and all circumstances, and not every jurisdiction has to obey it other than those that agree to it.