Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00376, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00376    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/4/23

Case #22CHCV00376

HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

Notice of Hearing filed on 12/6/22.

JUDGMENT CREDITOR: Plaintiff TBF Financial I, LLC

JUDGMENT DEBTOR: Defendant Armen Mkrtchyan

RULING:

On 5/26/22, Plaintiff TBF Financial I, LLC (Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor) filed this action against Defendants/Judgment Debtors Armen Trucking, Inc., Armen Mkrtchyan and Laura Mkrtchyan for: (1) Breach of Written Agreement, (2) Breach of Personal Guaranty, (3) Breach of Personal Guaranty, (4) Money Lent, (5) Account Stated and (6) Claim and Delivery.  On 8/12/22, default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the foregoing Defendants in the amount of $48,001.23.  On 8/25/22, an Abstract of Judgment and Writ of Execution were issued.

On or about 10/24/22, Judgment Creditor submitted to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department bank levy instructions for Judgment Debtors’ account(s) at Bank of the West.  On 11/22/23, Bank of the West attached $42,395.84 from the Judgment Debtors’ account(s).  On or about 11/29/22, Judgment Debtor Armen  Mkrtchyan (Claimant) forwarded to the Sheriff’s Office a Claim of Exemption, which was received by Judgment Creditor on 12/2/22. 

The Claim of Exemption cites “704.220,  704.225, 704.010, 704.030, 704.060” and contends that the account being levied is used in the debtor’s business.  (See Claim of Exemption filed 12/15/22, Nos.5, 6).  Although not specified in the Claim of Exemption, presumably the citations are to sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP).  (Id., No.5).  On 12/6/22, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Claim of Exemption. 

At the hearing on the Claim of Exemption, the Claimant has the burden of proof.  CCP 703.580(b).  Here, Claimant has failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that the funds levied are exempt under the cited code sections.

CCP 704.010 applies to "(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."  Here, Judgment Creditor levied on a bank account without the involvement of any motor vehicle.  As such, it does not appear that this code section applies. 

CCP 704.030 provides that “[m]aterial that in good faith is about to be applied to the repair or improvement of a residence is exempt if the equity in the material does not exceed three thousand five hundred dollar ($3,500)... .”   Again, here, Judgment Creditor levied on a bank account at Bank of the West.  Therefore, it does not appear that this section applies to the facts of this case.

CCP 704.060 (a) provides that “[t]ools, implements, instruments, materials, uniforms, furnishings, books, equipment, one commercial motor vehicle, one vessel, and other personal property are exempt to the extent that the aggregate equity thereon does not exceed: (1) Eight thousand seven hundred twenty-five dollars ($8,725.00)... ."   Again,  Claimant has failed to provide any documentation as to how this section would apply to the facts of this case.

CCP 704.220(a) provides that “[m]oney in the judgment debtor’s deposit account in an amount equal to or less than the minimum basis standard of adequate care for a family of four for Region 1, established by Section 11452 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and as annually adjusted by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Section 11453 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, is exempt without making a claim.”  The exemption amount for 2022 is

$1,788.00.  The amount that was attached in the Judgment Debtors’ bank account was $42,395.84, which is greater than the $1,788.00 exemption amount.  Therefore, Judgment Debtor has failed to establish that all of the funds in the account are exempt. 

CCP 704.225 provides that “[m]oney 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.”  Here, the Claimant has not provided any admissible evidence to establish that the funds are necessary for support.

If Claimant and/or his counsel represents at the hearing that Claimant can provide evidence to support his claim of exemption, the hearing will be continued pursuant to CCP 703.580(c).  In such case, Claimant is ordered to file and serve any such documentary evidence at least 16 court days before the continued hearing date.  Judgment Creditor may file and serve a written response/opposition to such evidence at least 9 court days before the continued hearing date and Claimant may file and serve a reply at least 5 court days before the continued hearing date.  The method of service of such papers must comply with CCP 1005(b) and (c).  If Claimant and/or his counsel represent at the hearing that Claimant has no such supporting evidence, the Claim of Exemption will be denied.