Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: BC724197, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC724197    Hearing Date: January 22, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2019, the Court granted default judgment for Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Judgment Creditor”) against Defendants Juan de Loera and Linda Castillo (Defendants).

On May, 9, 2023, a writ of execution was issued against Defendants.

On September 13, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed a Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption regarding Judgment Debtor Linda Castillo (“Castillo”).

On September 13, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption.  

The hearing for this matter was initially scheduled for December 7, 2023. The Court declined to rule because Judgment Debtor Linda Castillo’s claim of exemption had not been filed. (Min. Order, 12/7/23.)

On December 11, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed a Notice of Ruling and attached Castillo’s Claim of Exemption (Wage Garnishment) and Financial Statement.

On January 8, 2024, Castillo filed a Declaration in support of her claim.

LEGAL STANDARD

A writ of execution is a court process which allows a levying officer (i.e. the sheriff of a county) to enforce a money judgment in a manner prescribed by law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 699.520.) An individual judgment debtor may seek to prevent property from being levied by filing a claim of exemption.

“The claimant may make a claim of exemption by filing with the levying officer, either in person or by mail, a claim of exemption together with a copy of the claim. If the claimant is personally served, the claim shall be made within 15 days after the date the notice of levy on the property claimed to be exempt is served on the judgment debtor. If the claimant is served by mail, the claim shall be made within 20 days after the date the notice of levy on the property claimed to be exempt is served on the judgment debtor. If the claim is filed by mail and assigned a tracking number by the United States Postal Service or another common carrier, the filing shall be deemed complete on the date the claim is postmarked. If the claim is filed by mail and not assigned a tracking number, the filing shall be deemed complete on the date the claim is received by the levying officer.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 703.520 (a).)

The claim must include the information listed in section 703.520, subdivision b. Promptly after filing the claim of exemption, the levying officer shall serve a copy of the claim of exemption and “[a] notice of claim of exemption stating that the claim of exemption has been made and that the levying officer will release the property unless, within the time allowed as specified in the notice, both of the following are filed with the levying officer:

(1) A copy of the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption.

(2) A copy of the notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 703.540.)

“Within 10 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption, a judgment creditor who opposes the claim of exemption shall file with the court a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption and shall file with the levying officer a copy of the notice of opposition and a copy of the notice of motion. Upon the filing of the copies of the notice of opposition and notice of motion, the levying officer shall promptly file the claim of exemption with the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.550.)¿ 

At a hearing on a claim of exemption, “the [judgment debtor] has the burden of proof” in demonstrating that the property claimed exempt is indeed exempt. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 703.520, subd. (b), 703.580, subds. (b), (c).) In meeting this burden, the judgment debtor must establish the right by evidence or facts; an affidavit which merely follows the language of the statute and states nothing more than conclusions of law is insufficient.¿(Le Font v.¿Rankin¿(1959)¿167¿Cal.App.2d 433, 435.¿Generally, "common necessaries of life" means essentials commonly required by all persons for the sustenance of life, whatever their employment status and includes medical care. (J. J. MacIntyre Co. v. Duren (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 18-19).¿¿ 

“The hearing on the motion shall be held not later than 30 days from the date the notice of motion was filed with the court unless continued by the court for good cause.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 703.570 (a).)

“The court, in its discretion, may take into consideration any of the following changes that have occurred between the time of levy or commencement of enforcement proceedings or creation of the lien and the time of the hearing: . . . (3) A change in the financial circumstances of the judgment debtor and spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor if the exemption is based upon their needs.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 703.100(b)(3).)

“At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall determine by order whether or not the property is exempt in whole or in part. Subject to Section 703.600, the order is determinative of the right of the judgment creditor to apply the property to the satisfaction of the judgment. No findings are required in a proceeding under this section.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 703.580(d).)

DISCUSSION

According to Castillo’s Claim of Exemption, she requires all her earnings to support herself or her family. Despite, this Castillo offered to withhold $20.00 per pay period. She is paid twice a month.

Judgment Creditor opposes Castillo’s claim.

First, in the Claim of Exemption, Castillo has not provided a statutory basis for the claim. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 703.520(b) [“The claim of exemption shall be executed under oath and shall include all of the following: . . . (5) A citation of the provision of this chapter or other statute upon which the claim is based.”].) However, Code of Civil Procedure section 706.051(b) states:

“Except as provided in subdivision (c), the portion of the judgment debtor's earnings that the judgment debtor proves is necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor's family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor is exempt from levy under this chapter.”

Additionally, the law limits the amount of wages that can be garnished to no more than the lesser of (1) 20% of “disposable earnings” for the week or (2) “[f]orty percent of the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week exceed 48 times the state minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable. If a judgment debtor works in a location where the local minimum hourly wage is greater than the state minimum hourly wage, the local minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable shall be used for the calculation made pursuant to this paragraph.”[1] (See Code Civ. Proc. § 706.050(a).)

According to the declaration, Castillo’s monthly net income is $3,541.26. (See Financial Statement, item 2e.) Her total monthly expenses are $5,346.39. This leaves a monthly deficit of $1,805.13. She claims two dependent children, aged 15 and 18. In Castillo’s declaration, she states she is a single mother with two students and no additional income other than herself. She offers statements from her monthly mortgage payment ($2,188.69); a December 2023 gas bill ($51.78); a past due notice from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power from November 2023 ($4,846.10); a DMV registration renewal fee ($275) due January 2024; a monthly car payment ($439.12); a car insurance bill ($297.00); three credit cards payments; a monthly payment to the IRS ($15.00); and her most recent checking account statement.

Based on the limits required in section 706.050(a)(2), Castillo’s wages can be garnished no more than $31.95 per week.[2]

In her declaration, Castillo indicates she pays the following monthly expenses which appear to be necessary categories: $2,188.69 for a mortgage payment, $1,276.11 for water and power, $53.28 for gas. This amount totals $3,518.08 and does not even include costs for food. Therefore, the expenses provided exceed her net pay and appear necessary for the support of Castillo and her family. However, in light of Castillo’s statement that she is able to pay $20.00 per pay period, the Court will order that $20.00 be withheld each pay period. (See Claim of Exemption, item 4b.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Claim for Exemption is GRANTED.

Judgment Creditor shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.