Judge Layne H. Melzer, Case 2021-01223857 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2021-01223857, Date: 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Villa Fenix Homeowners Association

Claim of Exemption - Wage Garnishment

The Claim of Exemption asserted by Judgment Debtor Jose Henriquez is denied, as the Judgment Debtor did not meet his burden in establishing an applicable exemption.

Pursuant to C.C.P. §703.580(b), at a hearing on a Claim of Exemption, “the exemption claimant has the burden of proof.”

Here, the Claim of Exemption identifies the exempt property as: Bank of America Business checking account xxxxxxxx7190. (ROA No. 53 at ¶4 of Claim of Exemption.) Thereafter, the claim asserts the property is exempt pursuant to C.C.P. §§703.140(a)(1), 703.140(b)(5) and 703.140(b)(1). (Id. at ¶5.)

The cited provisions identify exemptions applicable where the Judgment Debtor has filed for bankruptcy; however, there has been no evidence submitted which indicates Judgment Debtor has filed for bankruptcy protections pursuant to Title 11 of the United States Code. Consequently, the exemptions articulated in C.C.P. §703.140 do not appear applicable and Judgment Debtor has not provided a “statement of the facts necessary to support the claim,” as required. (C.C.P. §703.520(b)(6).)

Following the above citations to C.C.P. §703.140, the Claim of Exemption indicates the claim “is made pursuant to a provision exempting property to the extent necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor.” (ROA No. 53 at ¶7 of Claim of Exemption.) This language suggests that Judgment Debtor is asserting an exemption pursuant to C.C.P. §704.225, which states: “Money in a judgment debtor’s deposit account that is not otherwise exempt under this chapter is exempt to the extent necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor.”

Judgment Debtor has not, however, provided sufficient information to demonstrates the funds in the relevant account are necessary for the support of Judgment Debtor or his dependents.

Attached to the Claim of Exemption is a Financial Statement executed under penalty of perjury by Judgment Debtor. The Financial Statement indicates Judgment Debtor’s monthly take-home pay is $6,000. (¶2 of Financial Statement (ROA No. 53.)) Thereafter, the Financial Statement purports to identify monthly expenses totaling $6,046. (See ¶4 of Financial Statement (ROA No. 53.)) Finally, the Financial Statement asserts: “We need all of my monthly earnings and the money in my Bank of America checking account in order to be able to cover all of our family’s basic living needs such as mortgage paym[ent], food, clothing, medicine, utilities, etc…” (¶6 and Attachment to Financial Statement (ROA No. 53.)) The Financial Statement, however, includes an unexplained monthly “Business Expense” of $3,000.00. (See ¶4 of Financial Statement (ROA No. 53.)

The Court previously continued the hearing on the claim of exemption and requested Judgment Debtor: (1) Identify the source of the $6,000 monthly income specified; and (2) Further explain and support the “business expenses” stated. (ROA No. 55.) Additionally, the Court requested personal and/or business bank statements, paycheck stubs and credit card statements. (Id.) Judgment Debtor was permitted to file a brief and declaration addressing the Court’s request, no later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing. (Id.)

Having opted against filing the additional information requested by the Court, the Court finds that Judgment Debtor failed to meet his burden of proof and failed to demonstrate the property included within Bank of America Business checking account No. xxxxxxxx7190 is exempt. (C.C.P. §703.580(b).) “The debtor bears the burden of proving that his property fits within one or more of these exemptions.” (O’Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLC (2016) 246 Cal.App.4^th 942, 948.)

In particular, Judgment Debtor did not substantiate his claim that the funds in the account are “necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor.” (C.C.P. §704.225.) While Judgment Debtor claims his monthly expenses exceed his income, he did not substantiate the claim that $3,000.00 in monthly business expenses are necessary for his support.

Consequently, the claim of exemption is denied, in whole.

Pursuant to C.C.P. §703.580(e), “[t]he 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…apply the property to the satisfaction of the money judgment.”