Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV35112, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35112    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Hearing on Judgment Debtor Liang Wang’s Claim of Exemption

            Judgment debtor Liang Wang filed a claim of exemption from wage garnishment.  He states he needs all his earnings to support his family and is willing to agree to garnishment of $100 per month.  (Claim of Exemption, ¶¶ 2.a., 4.b.)             

Judgment debtor Wang fails to meet his burden of proving his claim of exemption.  “[T]he portion of the judgment debtor’s earnings that the judgment debtor proves is necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor’s family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor is exempt from levy.”  (CCP § 706.051(b).) 

The court finds judgment debtor Wang failed to disclose all his dependents’ property in his financial statement.  In the statement—signed under penalty of perjury by Liang Wang and his spouse, Hong Wang—judgment debtor states he supports his spouse, his 14-year-old son, Levi Wang, and his 28-year-old daughter, Yao Wang.  (Financial Statement, ¶ 1.)  Liang Wang states his monthly take-home pay is $2,171.52 (id., ¶ 2.c.), plus $1,000 in “possible overtime from employment” (id., ¶ 2.d.).  He states his spouse has $2,796 in take-home income (id., ¶ 1.a.), while his daughter has no income (id., ¶ 1.c.). 

In support his claim of exemption, Wang states, “Even though my daughter lives with me and my wife, she is an adult and I have no control and no access over her earnings.”  (Wang Decl., ¶ 22.)  He therefore acknowledges she has earnings—but he failed to disclose them.  It makes no difference whether he has access to his daughter’s earnings.  Her earnings are relevant because he claims monthly expenses for supporting her as a dependent.

Judgment debtor Wang also failed to disclose all his bank accounts.  His financial statement lists a single bank account at Chase Bank with a balance of $3,326.  (Financial Statement, ¶ 3.b.)  But in support of his claim, he submitted his 2021 tax return.  (Wang Decl., Ex. 3.)  It was certified on March 5, 2022.  (Id., form 8879.)  The return authorized direct deposit of his refund of $436 into an account with routing number 122000247.  (Id., form 540, line 115.)  That is the routing number for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.  (Sampson Reply Decl., ¶¶ 12, 13.)  Wang did not disclose that account and its balance in his financial statement.

Finally, Wang claims excessive monthly expenses.  He states his expenses include $1,800 for “[f]ood and household supplies.”  (Financial Statement, ¶ 4.b.)  That amount is facially implausible for a family of four.  Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel states, “According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, CPI, and the related websites, a fair amount is about $892/month for four people in Alhambra, California.”  (Sampson Decl., ¶ 27.)  In response, judgment debtor did not provide evidence of the amount of his expenses.  He instead argued judgment creditor failed to account for inflation.  (Wang Decl., ¶¶ 18-19.)  Creditor’s counsel, however, used the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ website to calculate the cost of food as of September 2022.  (Sampson Reply Decl., ¶ 11.)  That estimated cost includes inflation. 

The court finds judgment debtor Liang Wang has made several misrepresentations that negatively impact his credibility.  As the trier of fact on this matter, if the court believes a witness did not tell the truth about something important, it can choose not to believe the remainder of the witness’s testimony.  (CACI No. 107.)  Judgment debtor Liang Wang has not met his burden of proof on his claim of exemption.

Judgment debtor Liang Wang’s claim of exemption is denied.  The court will sign the proposed order on form WG-011.