Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCP00406, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP00406    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 74

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

MOVING PARTY:                Judgment Creditor Swift Financial, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       None

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition has been filed as of March 17, 2023.

BACKGROUND

On February 8, 2021, Swift Financial, LLC (“Judgment Creditor”) filed a petition asking this Court to confirm an arbitration award of $105,271.28 that Judgment Creditor secured against Vanguard International Engineering d/b/a HR Commercial Development and Mary Woeste (“Judgment Debtor”). The underlying arbitration concerned a $100,000 business loan that Judgement Debtor personally guaranteed.

On June 9, 2021, this Court granted the petition and confirmed the arbitrator’s judgment. On November 2, 2021, a writ of execution was issued for Los Angeles County, and on February 7, 2022, a writ of execution was issued for Santa Barbara County.

Judgment Creditor now brings this motion for an order assigning rights to payments from Judgment Debtor to Judgment Creditor. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor or to a receiver appointed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 708.610) all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments:

(1) Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order.

(2) Rents.

(3) Commissions.

(4) Royalties.

(5) Payments due from a patent or copyright.

(6) Insurance policy loan value.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(a).)

“The notice of the motion shall be served on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(b).)

“[I]n determining whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment pursuant to subdivision (a), the court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including the following:

(1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor.

(2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support.

(3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment.

(4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(c).)

DISCUSSION

Judgment Creditor brings this motion, offering proof of judgment, lack of payment by Judgment Debtor, and evidence that Judgment Debtor is earning money working as a caretaker in San Luis Obispo. Judgment Creditor also attaches proof of service by mail on Judgment Debtor to an address confirmed as of December 2022 by bank records. Judgment Debtor has filed no opposition or response to this motion.

Judgment Creditor brings its motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510 et seq. (Motion, p. 3.) Judgment Creditor does not offer any other statutory basis for its motion. (See Ibid.) As Judgment Creditor correctly notes, Section 708.510(a) authorizes a court to issue an order directing a judgment debtor to assign to a judgment creditor all or part of a right to payment due or to become due from the following types of payments: Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order, rents, commissions, royalties, payments due from a patent or copyright, insurance policy loan value, accounts receivable, general intangibles, and judgments and instruments.

Here, the evidence of payments to Judgment Debtor offered by Judgment Creditor appears to effectively be modest wages Judgment Debtor has earned from being a caretaker. Chapter 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, starting at section 706.020, governs the garnishment of wages, and it includes particular rules that are not applicable to the statute cited by Judgment Creditor. For example, Section 706.050 limits garnishment to twenty percent of an individual’s disposable earnings per week. Judgment Creditor therefore does not present a legitimate statutory basis for the Court to grant its motion.

On a similar note, Judgment Creditor does not propose any details regarding the appropriate amount of assignment—or garnishment really. Judgment Creditor simply asks the Court to “order assignment of the right to payment in an amount necessary to pay off the judgment in full” (Motion, pg. 4), and then notes that “Plaintiff obtained judgment in this action on June 17, 2021 in the amount of $105,271.28.” (Ibid.) Judgment Creditor is effectively asking the Court to garnish all the income Judgment Debtor is earning working as a caretaker until she has paid off over $100,000 from a loan to her contracting business. Such an order would violate the spirit, if not letter, of Section 706.050 (limiting garnishment to twenty percent of an individual’s disposable earnings), which the Court is not willing to do.

Judgment Creditor makes a strong showing for assignment of some kind. This Court confirmed the arbitrator’s award in Judgment Creditor’s favor, and Judgment Debtor has failed to pay any amount of the judgment rendered against her. That said, Judgment Creditor must present this Court with a valid legal basis to issue an assignment order, along with details such as Judgment Debtor’s total income and the proposed amount of assignment. The Court will then be able to determine if such an assignment is fair and just.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court denies without prejudice Swift Financial, LLC’s motion for order of assignment of rights to payments from Judgment Debtor.

Judgment Creditor is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 21, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court