Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2020-01173844, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Assignee of Record Asset Liquidation Group, Inc.
Claim of Exemption - Levy

Claimant Abby Johnson claims an exemption as to a 2011 Porsche Panamera Turbo pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 704.010. 

As facts supporting the claim, she states: “I own the car referenced above and there is no loan on the car.  I am separately filing a Third-Party Claim of Ownership, but I am entitled to an exemption for this car under Section 704.010.”

Claimant bears the burden of proof at a hearing on a claim of exemption.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (b).) However, the exemption statutes are liberally construed in favor of the debtor.  (Independence Bank v. Heller (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 84, 88.)

Code Civ. Proc., § 704.010 states:

(a)  Any combination of the following is exempt in the amount of three thousand three hundred twenty-five dollars ($3,325):

(1) The aggregate equity in motor vehicles.

(2) The proceeds of an execution sale of a motor vehicle.

(3) The proceeds of insurance or other indemnification for the loss, damage, or destruction of a motor vehicle.

(b)  Proceeds exempt under subdivision (a) are exempt for a period of 90 days after the time the proceeds are actually received by the judgment debtor.

(c)  For the purpose of determining the equity, the fair market value of a motor vehicle shall be determined by reference to used car price guides customarily used by California automobile dealers unless the motor vehicle is not listed in such price guides.

(d)  If the judgment debtor has only one motor vehicle and it is sold at an execution sale, the proceeds of the execution sale are exempt in the amount of three thousand three hundred twenty-five dollars ($3,325) without making a claim. The levying officer shall consult and may rely upon the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles in determining whether the judgment debtor has only one motor vehicle. In the case covered by this subdivision, the exemption provided by subdivision (a) is not available.

Claimant has provided no information as to whether she has any ownership in vehicles other than the one claimed to be exempt.

As a result, the Court finds that Claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof.  Therefore, the claim of exemption is denied.