Judge Martha K. Gooding, Case 2018-00982757 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2018-00982757, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Claims of Exemption

No tentative ruling available. Parties to appear for hearing.

Parties shall appear for hearing prepared to address, among other things, the following:

1. The status of any bankruptcy proceeding filed by Judgment Debtor Christopher R. Marks;

2. If a bankruptcy proceeding is still pending with respect to Judgment Debtor Christopher Marks, whether Judgment Creditor obtained relief from the automatic stay. It appears Judgment Creditor may have obtained a judgment of non-dischargeabilty (See Compton Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, Exh. 4) but it is not clear to the Court that a determination that a debt is non-dischargeable is, by itself, sufficient to warrant or constitute relief from the automatic stay. See In re Feingold (11^th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 1268, 1277-1278.

3. If Judgment Creditor has not obtained relief from the automatic stay, what authority allows judgment enforcement proceedings (a) against Christopher and (b) against Cynthia as it relates to alleged community property?

4. It appears the San Bernardino County Sheriff, Cynthia Marks, and the Judgment Creditor all understand Cynthia Mark’s “claim of exemption” to be a Third Party Claim and are treating it as such. But it also appears neither Judgment Creditor nor Cynthia Marks filed a petition for hearing on the Third Party Claim. Thus, has this issue been properly noticed for hearing? Is Cynthia Marks’ claim properly before the Court? And does the Court have jurisdiction to rule on the Third Party Claim? Even if the Judgment Creditor’s opposition to Cynthia Marks’ “claim of exemption” were treated as a petition for a hearing on a Third Party Claim, that document was not filed until 6/23/2022, which is more than 15 days after the third party claim was filed and more than 15 days after Judgment Creditor filed the undertaking. Under what authority does the Court have jurisdiction to now rule on the Third Party Claim? See CCP § 720.310(a); and Commercial Credit Plan, Inc. v. Gomez (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d Supp. 831, 834 (“The law is also clear that when 15 days have run from the filing of the third party claim and no petition for hearing has been filed, the trial court in which the suit was brought loses jurisdiction to hear the summary proceeding.”).