Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: PC048948, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: PC048948    Hearing Date: June 25, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 6/25/24

Case #PC048948

HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

Notice of Hearing filed 5/22/24.

JUDGMENT CREDITOR: Plaintiff Citibank, N.A.

JUDGMENT DEBTOR: Defendant Gordon C. Greene

RULING: The hearing will be continued. 

On 10/10/12, judgment was entered against Defendant Gordon C. Greene and in favor of Plaintiff Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. in the amount of $27,713.84.  On 7/22/22, the judgment was renewed in the amount of $32,567.94.  On 1/24/24, a Writ of Execution was issued in the amount of $32,607.94.

On 5/22/94, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption and Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption.  On 5/29/24, Defendant filed a Claim of Exemption wherein Defendant states that the property he claims to be exempt is “Bank accounts, wages, Logix” pursuant to CCP 704.220 and Defendant’s Financial Statement.  In the supporting Financial Statement, Defendant indicates that his and his family’s total monthly expenses exceed Defendant’s total monthly income. 

In the opposition to the claim of exemption, Plaintiff seeks proof of Defendant’s claimed monthly gross income, payroll deductions, other money Defendant receives each month from personal training, and actual monthly rent or house payment and maintenance expenses.  Plaintiff indicates that it is willing to accept the applicable rate of net earnings under CCP 706.050 per pay period from Defendant by way of payment installment, until the balance owing is paid in full. 

As the exemption claimant, Defendant has the burden of proof at the hearing.  CCP 703.580.  It is not entirely clear what property Defendant is claiming is exempt as he provides no evidence from his monthly wages as an actor or personal trainer.  Additionally, Defendant has generically stated “bank accounts” as property which is exempt, but also mentions “Logix.”  (See Claim of Exemption, .p1, No.4).  However, Defendant does not list Logix as one of the banks/financial institutions where he has an account.  (See Financial Statement, p.1, No.3.b).  As such, it is not clear how much money Defendant has in a Logix account.  The Sheriff’s Department is not holding any personal property of Defendant at this time.  (See Claim of Exemption, pdf p.5).

Based on the foregoing, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to make a determination as to Defendant’s claim of exemption.  Therefore, the hearing will be continued.  CCP 703.580(c).  Defendant is ordered to file and serve evidence regarding his gross monthly income, payroll deductions, other money Defendant receives each month from personal training, and actual monthly rent or house payment and maintenance expenses.  Additionally, Defendant is to file and serve evidence regarding any account he holds at Logix.  Also, Defendant must explain why his wife and adult son (21 years old/college student) do not/cannot contribute to the family’s monthly income.  Further, Defendant is to explain why Plaintiff is not entitled to levy amounts pursuant to CCP 706.050.

Such evidence and explanation must be filed and served at least 16 court days before the continued hearing date.  Plaintiff may file and serve a response to this additional evidence within 5 court days of the continued hearing date.  The foregoing additional evidence and response must be served pursuant to CCP 1005(c).