Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 19PSCV01124, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 19PSCV01124 Hearing Date: December 13, 2023 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
Defendant’s Claim of Exemption is GRANTED.
Background
This case
arises from unpaid credit card debt.
On December
17, 2019, Plaintiff Navy Federal Credit Union filed suit against Defendant
Sheng Wei Wang for (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts.
On March 18,
2020, default was entered against defendant.
On December
15, 2020, the court entered default judgment in the amount of $42,092.65.
On July 17,
2023, a writ of execution was filed.
On November
14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION.
On November
17, 2023, Defendant filed a Claim of Exemption.
Legal
Standard
The court in Kono v. Meeker (2011)
196 Cal.App.4th 81, 86, provided the following description on claims of
exemption.
As a general rule, all property of a
judgment debtor is subject to enforcement of a money judgment. [Citations.] The
California Constitution, however, requires the Legislature to protect ‘a
certain portion’ of a debtor's property from forced sale. (Cal. Const., art. XX, § 1.5.) The purpose of this requirement is
to protect enough of the debtors' property from enforcement to enable them to
support themselves and their families, and to help shift the cost of social
welfare for debtors from the community to judgment creditors. [Citations.] [¶]
To that end, California has enacted a ‘comprehensive and precisely detailed
scheme’ governing enforcement of money judgments. [Citations.]
The kinds and degrees of
property exempt from
levy are described in various statutes, generally set forth in sections 704.010
through 704.210. Other California statutes and by federal law provide
additional exemptions. (Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and
Debts (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶ 6:821, p. 6E–1 (rev. # 1, 2013).)
Discussion
Debtor/Defendant
moves for a claim of exemption pursuant to CCP section 706.050.
Defendant has
a total monthly income of $2,331.08; Defendant’s spouse has no income. Defendant
and his/her spouse own $500 in cash and $200 in their bank of America account
(upon which a levy of $50,879.75 has been imposed). Family expenses amount to $3,310.00.
In
pertinent part, according to CCP 706.050 subdivision (a), “the maximum amount
of disposable earnings of an individual judgment debtor for any workweek that
is subject to levy under earnings withholding order shall not exceed … twenty-five
percent of the individual’s disposable earnings for that week.”
In
opposition, Plaintiff cites to CCP section
704.220 subdivision (a), which provides that “the money in the judgment
debtor’s deposit account in an amount equal to or less than the minimum basic
standard of adequate care for a family of four is exempt without making a
claim.” Put simply, the bank would have applied an automatic exemption prior to
levying the non-exempt funds based upon the state’s minimum basic standard of
adequate care, which would appear to support Defendant’s claim of exemption. To
the extent that the opposition avers that the “[a]mount levied is beyond
the deemed exempt,” the court is uncertain as to the implications of this
statement.
Conclusion
Based on the
foregoing, the claim of exemption is granted.