Judge: Debra Cole-Hall, Case: 18NWCV00076, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18NWCV00076    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: SEK

Judgment Creditors Go and Dee’s motion for order allowing sale of community property interests is GRANTED.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Judgment Creditors Go and Dee move for an order permitting the sale and levy of Judgment Debtor’s community property interest pursuant to CCP § 695.020. 

On December 15, 2021, Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and Judgment Creditors Gelina L. Go and Lee Go Dee aka Ester L. Dee in the amount of $524,319.00, against Defendant and Judgment Debtor Christine Ruelos.  On or about February 17, 2022, the Court granted Judgment Creditors’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and awarded the sum of $57,740 in attorney’s fees and $136,904 in accrued interest.

No part of the Judgment has been paid, and the full principal amount of the Judgment, plus prejudgment interest and costs of enforcement, remains due and owing.

CCP § 695.020 provides:

(a) Community property is subject to enforcement of a money judgment as provided in the Family Code. 

(b) Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, if community property that is subject to enforcement of a money judgment is sought to be applied to the satisfaction of a money judgment:

(1)  Any provision of this division that applies to the property of the judgment debtor or to obligations owed to the judgment debtor also applies to the community property interest of the spouse of the judgment debtor and to obligations owed to the other spouse that are community property.

(2) Any provision of this division that applies to property in the possession or under the control of the judgment debtor also applies to community property in the possession or under the control of the spouse of the judgment debtor.

Fam. Code § 910 provides that the “community estate is liable for debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses or parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.”  (See also In re Marriage of Braendle (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1042.)

The Property at 1701 W. Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90047 is owned by Judgment Debtor Christine Ruelos and Vicman Ruelos as “Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants.” (Matthews Decl., Ex. A.)  Judgment Creditor Gelina Go also confirms that Judgment Debtor and Vicman Ruelos have been married for many years, and remain married as of the filing of this motion. (Go Decl., ¶4.)

The Property was determined to be Judgment Debtor’s investment property, and neither Judgment Debtor nor her husband is entitled to a dwelling exemption.  (5/24/22 Order.)

In opposition, Judgment Debtor cites three cases, Bogart v. Woodruff (1892) 96 Cal. 609, 611-612, Russell v. Laugharn (9th Cir. 1927) 20 F.2d 95, and Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey (2000) 24 Cal.4th 301.

Bogart is an 1892 case that concerned liability under a contract made before marriage, and was a case that relied on code sections that were repealed in 1969.  Bogart is not applicable to this case.  Russell was another decision that relied on code sections that were repealed in 1969.  Russell is also distinguishable.  Collection Bureau involved the Probate Code, which has no application to this case.

Finally, Judgment Debtor cites Fam. Code § 914, which provides that a married person is liable for debts incurred for the necessaries of life of the spouse incurred during marriage.  This Code section does not prohibit satisfaction of judgments pursuant to community property as contemplated by Fam. Code § 910.

Judgment Debtor claims that the sale would violate Vicman’s due process rights, and that he should have been added as a necessary party.  However, Reynolds v. Reynolds Co. v. Universal Forms, Labels & Systems, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1997) 965 F.Supp. 1392, 1396 holds that a non-debtor spouse is not a necessary party to action to enforce debt against the community property.  Further, Fam. Code § 910 specifically provides that Vicman’s community share of the estate is liable “regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.”  The court finds no due process violations.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.