Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00665, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00665    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Defendant’s Claim of Exemption is GRANTED IN PART, by way of modifying the wage garnishment order to subject only $513.03 per month to garnishment.

Background

This case arises from a retail installment contract. Plaintiff MS Services, LLC alleges the following against Defendant Dominque J. King: In 2019, Defendant entered into an agreement for the purchase of a vehicle. In March 2022, Defendant failed to make monthly payments thereby defaulting on the loan.

On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit for:

1.     Breach of Retail Installment Sale Contract

2.     Money Lent

3.     Recovery of Personal Property (Claim and Delivery)

On October 31, 2023, default was entered against Defendant.

On July 5, 2024, the court entered default judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $39,287.42 (including interest, attorney fees, and costs, with damages on the complaint of $31,508.44.)

On August 22, 2024, an Abstract of Judgment was filed.

On October 2, 2024, a Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption was filed.

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).)

A judgment creditor who desires to contest a claim of exemption must, within 10 days after the date of the mailing of the notice of claim of exemption (here, 9/25/24), file with the levying officer a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption. The judgment creditor's notice of opposition to the claim of exemption must be executed under oath and must, amongst other requirements, provide the amount of the judgment debtor's claim of exemption which the judgment creditor claims is not exempt and the factual and legal grounds for the judgment creditor's opposition to the claim of exemption. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 706.128, subd. (d)., (e).)  

Discussion

According to the claim of exemption, Defendant, who has no spouse, needs all earnings exempt to support her and her family. (See ‘Notice Subject: Claim of Exemption Hearing/filed by Sheriff Department’ Filing, p. 2 of 8 of PDF.) Defendant’s gross monthly income is $5,600 with a monthly take-home pay of $4,516.94. From this take home pay, total monthly expenses amount to $5,236.00. The court accepts that rent, food and household supplies, utilities, clothing, medical and dental payments, insurance, transportation expenses, and laundry and cleaning expenses are necessary expenses. This cannot be reasonably disputed. 

In opposition, the creditor indicates that none of the earnings are exempt (section 4(a)) but then in section 5, indicates that of the total monthly expenses, Defendant’s claim of $180 in monthly credit card expenses and $333.03 in a monthly loan payment are not exempt because they are not necessary to support the debtor’s family. Thus, it appears that all the expenses are exempt except for the monthly credit expenses and monthly loan payment (total of $513.03).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s claim for exemption would be GRANTED IN PART, by way of modifying the wage garnishment order to subject only $513.03 per month to garnishment.