Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: EC059681, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: EC059681    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations and Relevant Background  

Plaintiff National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4 (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it entered into a written contract with Defendants Bianca Medina and Alejandro Pimentel on September 18, 2006.  Plaintiff agreed to loan money to Defendants for the financing of education expenses.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the agreement by failing to make payments on the contract as agreed.  The outstanding principal amount is $40,093.01. The complaint, filed November 13, 2012, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) common counts.

On July 25, 2013, judgment was entered by default against Defendants in the amount of $40,768.01.   

On October 28, 2022, a Notice of Renewal of Judgment was filed showing that the renewal extended the period of enforceability of the judgment by 10 years from the application’s filing date. 

On July 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption, to the levying officer, Los Angeles Sheriff.  The Notice identifies Alejandro Pimentel as the judgment debtor.  Plaintiff filed a Notice of Opposition to the Claim of Exemption, arguing that the earnings claimed as exempt are not exempt.  On July 27, 2018, Judge Benny C. Osorio (retired) denied the claim of exemption.

B.     Matter on Calendar

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption, to the levying officer, Robert G Luna (Sheriff’s Office).  The Notice identifies Bianca Medina (“Defendant”) as the judgment debtor.  Concurrently, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Opposition to the Claim of Exemption, arguing that the earnings claimed as exempt by Defendant are not exempt. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s claim of exemption, which is set for June 28, 2024.  In support of its opposition, Plaintiff provides the declaration of its counsel Nathalia A. Aguirre.  Ms. Aguirre states that Defendant has stated that the funds she claims to exempt are needed to support herself, her 2 children, and her spouse, but Defendant has not cited the CCP code that exempts the funds, she has not stated the ages of her children, and she has not clarified whether they are dependents or contributors to the household income.  (Aguirre Decl., ¶5.)  Ms. Aguirre states that Defendant has indicated her monthly expenses are $5,465.35, which includes $200 for clothing, $300 for entertainment, and $100 for laundry and cleaning, but that her monthly income amounts to $4,108.64 and Defendant has not stated her spouse’s contribution to household expenses.  (Id., ¶6.)  Counsel also states that Defendant’s financial statement does not have sufficient information as to her inability to pay the underlying judgment; rather, her ability to make monthly car payments contradicts her claim that she is unable to pay the judgment debt.  (Id., ¶7.)  Ms. Aguirre states that the total amount due is $83,732.27 and that Defendant has not contacted counsel’s office to attempt to set up a payment plan or settle the amount due.  (Id., ¶8.) 

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, property that has been levied upon may be claimed to be exempt as provided in this article.”  (CCP § 703.510.)  A claimant may make a claim of exemption by following the procedure in CCP § 703.520. 

            CCP § 703.580 provides:

(a) The claim of exemption and notice of opposition to the claim of exemption constitute the pleadings, subject to the power of the court to permit amendments in the interest of justice.

(b) At a hearing under this section, the exemption claimant has the burden of proof.

(c) The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. If not satisfied, the court shall order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.

(d) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall determine by order whether or not the property is exempt in whole or in part. Subject to Section 703.600, the order is determinative of the right of the judgment creditor to apply the property to the satisfaction of the judgment. No findings are required in a proceeding under this section.

(e) The court clerk shall promptly transmit a certified copy of the order to the levying officer. Subject to Section 703.610, the levying officer shall, in compliance with the order, release the property or apply the property to the satisfaction of the money judgment.

(f) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, if an exemption is not determined within the time provided by Section 703.570, the property claimed to be exempt shall be released.

(CCP § 703.580.)

The Court is not in receipt of Defendant Medina’s claim of exemption for the Court to ascertain whether the claim of exemption is valid.

According to section 703.580, at the hearing, the exemption claimant/Defendant Medina has the burden of proof that she is entitled to a claim of exemption.  Thus, the parties are ordered to attend the hearing on the claim of exemption so that the Court may determine the amount of the exemption, if any.

DATED:  June 28, 2024                                                         ___________________________

John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court