Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: April 10, 2024

Case Name: Shepela v. Winters

Case No.: 23STCP00427

Matter: Claim of Exemption

Moving Party: Defendant/Judgment Debtor Barbara Winters

Responding Party: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Kevin Shepela and Suzanne Shepela

Tentative Ruling: The Claim for Exemption is denied.

On July 20, 2023, the Court issued an Amended Judgment in the amount of $52,325.50 in favor of Plaintiffs Kevin Shepela and Suzanne Shepela (individually and as Trustees of the Shepela Trust) (Plaintiffs) against Defendants Leonard Winters and Barbara Winters (individually and as Trustees of the Winters Trust dated May 25, 1993), and Steven Winters (Defendants).

Thereafter, Plaintiffs served Bank of America with a Notice of Levy for all four Defendants seeking to levy the sum of $52,405.50 in the account of any of the four Defendants.

On or about February 8, 2024, Defendant Barbara Winters filed a Claim of Exemption. Plaintiffs filed an opposition. No reply was filed.

The Claim of Exemption is denied.

Analysis

Judgment Debtor Barabra Winters’ claim of exemption asserts that certain property is exempt because it is: “Social Security Benefits, Trust Funding, Fuel for Residence, and Private Health Insurance” (Claim of Exemption (Claim), ¶ 4.)

The evidence shows that on December 4, 2023, Bank of America issued a notice to the Los Angeles County Sheriff, referencing the account ending in “3519,” which is the joint account of Barbara Winters, Leonard Winters and Steven Winters; the notice states that there was $60,000 in the “joint account”, and that the sum of $6,747 was designated as “Federal amount protected.”

Plaintiffs argue that based on Bank of America’s determination that $6,747 of the funds are exempt, Plaintiffs may still levy the remaining amount in the account of $60,000, leaving a balance of $846.50 in addition to the this “Federal amount protected” of $6,747.

The Claim of Exemption argues the following property is exempt: “Social Security Benefits, Trust Funding, Fuel For Residence, and Private Health Insurance.” (Claim, ¶ 4.) In support, Defendant Barbara cites “CCP 704.020, CCP 704.130, CCP 704.080, 42 USC 407, FIN C 704.080” (Claim, ¶ 5.) The facts in support of Defendant Barabra’s claim are as follows “Deposit Accounts, Checking, Mercer/Charles Schwab, Social Security Office, MEDICAID.” (Claim, ¶ 6.)

Further, in support, Defendant Barabra attaches a statement to a Bank of America account ending in “3519”, a 2023 Social Security Benefit 1099 in the amount of $26,988, and a statement to a Charles Schwab account ending in “1197.”

As a preliminary matter, the burden of proof is upon the party claiming the exemption. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (b) [“At a hearing under this section, the exemption claimant has the burden of proof”].)

As the opposition notes, neither the evidence nor the citation to various statutes demonstrates that the accounts in question are subject to any exemption. That is, Defendant Barbara fails to trace any amount in the accounts from or to an exempt source.

Specifically, the joint Bank of America account does not identify where the funds from the account came from or how the funds in the account were used. The Social Security 1099 does not show where these funds were deposited or if they were comingled in any specific account. Laslty, the Charles Schwab account is in the name of the Winters Trust, not Barbara Winters; moreover, none of the evidence shows that any monies in account can be traced to an exempt source.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judgment Debtor has not met her burden of showing the exemption applies. The Claim of Exemption is denied.