Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 19STCV20539, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 19STCV20539    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: 52

Hearing on Judgment Debtor Jose M. Soto’s Claim of Exemption

Judgment debtor Jose M. Soto filed a claim of exemption from wage garnishment.  Judgment creditor Financial Consulting Help Center, Inc. filed an opposition to the claim.  The court therefore holds this hearing under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.105.

Judgment debtor Jose M. Soto proves $4,643.18 of his monthly earnings are exempt.  “[T]he 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.”  (CCP § 706.051(b).) 

Soto states he needs all his earnings to support his wife and his adult son with special needs.  (Claim, ¶ 2.a.; Financial Statement, ¶¶ 1, 6.)  He states he is not willing to withhold any amount each pay period.  (Claim, ¶ 4.a.)  But in his sworn financial statement, Soto stated his monthly take-home pay is $5,100.43 (Financial Statement, ¶ 2.c), while his monthly expenses total $4,643.18 (id., ¶ 4.n).  His monthly earnings exceed his expenses by $457.25.  Soto further states, “Cost of groceries and utilities continue to increase.”  (Id., ¶ 6.)  This conclusory statement does not justify finding Soto’s entirely monthly earnings exempt.  Soto therefore proves $4,643.18 of his monthly earnings, rather than his entire monthly earnings, is exempt under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.051(b).

Judgment creditor did not effectively rebut Soto’s claim of exemption as to the $4,643.18 necessary to support his family.  Creditor’s opposition to the claim of exemption must include “[t]he factual and legal grounds for the judgment creditor’s opposition to the claim of exemption.”  (CCP § 706.128(e).)  Judgment creditor’s notice of opposition asserts none of debtor’s earnings are exempt, but that creditor will accept $150 per pay period.  (Opp., ¶¶ 4, 6.)  The opposition states creditor opposes Soto’s claim because “the following expenses of the debtor are not necessary for the support of the debtor or the debtor’s family (specify): Judgment Debtor has not provided any proof in support of his claim.”  (Id., ¶ 5.a.)  The opposition further states, “Judgment Debtor failed to provide proof of the exemption he is claiming, and the judgment creditor wants to see documentation establishing the exemption.  Further, the judgment was for improvements on the real property.”  (Id., ¶ 5.c.)

Creditor’s opposition merely denies Soto’s claim of exemption and demands further evidence.  Creditor did not provide any evidence of its own.  Soto’s sworn financial statement is prima facie evidence of his exemption.  Nothing about his statement is inherently implausible or unreasonable.  As a whole, the evidence suffices to show that $4,643.18 of Soto’s monthly earnings are exempt under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.051(b).

Disposition

The court hereby orders that $4,643.18 of judgment debtor Jose M. Soto’s monthly earnings is exempt under the Enforcement of Judgments Law.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 703.580(e), the clerk shall promptly transmit a certified copy of this order to the levying officer. 

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5(d), the court hereby orders that the clerk shall serve notice of entry of this order on all parties.