Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 20GDCV00858, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff American Express National Bank, as successor by merger to American Express Bank, FSB, brings this action on causes of action for common counts against defendant Linda M. Bekeredjian, and various akas, alleging that defendant became indebted to plaintiff on an open book account, an account stated, and money lent in the sum of $46,669.76.

The file shows that on May 3, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation for Conditional Entry of Judgment executed by the parties in April of 2023. On May 17, 2022, the court signed and filed an Order for Entry of Stipulation for Conditional Entry of Judgment and Dismissal Pursuant to CCP section 664.6, ordering that the Stipulation for Conditional Entry of Judgment filed concurrently was entered, and that the matter was dismissed, and the court would have jurisdiction pursuant to CCP section 664.6 over the parties to enforce the Stipulation until performance in full of the terms.

On August 18, 2023, the court heard a motion brought by plaintiff for Order Vacating Dismissal and Entering Judgment Against Defendant Pursuant to CCP section 664.6. The unopposed motion was granted, and judgment was awarded to plaintiff and against defendant in the total sum of $40,646.83. The judgment was signed and filed the same date.

The claim of exemption is directed to a levy of the Judgment Debtor’s bank account with Bank of America, pursuant to which the Sheriff is holding funds received from the bank in the sum of $9,279.32.

“The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. If a claim of exemption asserts that money in a judgment debtor's deposit account is or was necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor as provided in Section 704.225, the court shall review the judgment debtor's financial statement and make findings thereon. If not satisfied, the court may order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.”

Under CCP § 703.580(b), at a hearing on the claim, “the exemption claimant has the burden of proof.” In meeting this burden, the one who claims the exemption must establish the right by evidence or facts; an affidavit which merely follows the language of the statute and states nothing more than conclusions of law is insufficient. See Le Font v. Ranin (1959, 2nd Dist.) 167 Cal.App. 2d 433, 435.

(b) Property which is necessary for the support of a defendant who is a natural person or the family of such defendant supported in whole or in part by the defendant.

Here, the claim of exemption indicates that the property claimed to be exempt consists of life insurance benefits paid to judgment debtor as beneficiary from her mother’s death, and funds of $945 taken from judgment debtor’s son’s account. Judgment debtor also claims that the property is exempt to the extent necessary for the support of judgment debtor.

(b) The aggregate loan value of unmatured life insurance policies (including endowment and annuity policies) is subject to the enforcement of a money judgment but is exempt in the amount of thirteen thousand nine hundred seventy-five dollars ($13,975). If the judgment debtor is married, each spouse is entitled to a separate exemption under this subdivision, and the exemptions of the spouses may be combined, regardless of whether the policies belong to either or both spouses and regardless of whether the spouse of the judgment debtor is also a judgment debtor under the judgment. The exemption provided by this subdivision shall be first applied to policies other than the policy before the court and then, if the exemption is not exhausted, to the policy before the court.

(c) Benefits from matured life insurance policies (including endowment and annuity policies) are exempt to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor.”

As argued in the opposition, the funds at issue are not unmatured or matured life insurance policies held by judgment debtor, but the claim itself shows that the funds are an amount paid to judgment debtor from an insurer upon the death of Norma Olson, who judgment debtor indicates was her mother, in 2022. [Claim, para. 4, Attach.]. These funds are not exempt under the statute.

With respect to the argument that the funds include funds from judgment debtor’s son’s account, it does not appear that any funds from any account other than the one savings account have been delivered to the sheriff. As argued in the opposition, while judgment debtor has indicated to judgment creditor and in the claim that an additional sum beyond the account in which the life insurance proceeds are being held has been levied, it appears that there has been no levy of any account beyond the savings account into which the life insurance check was deposited. Judgment debtor has accordingly failed to show that the funds from some other account not currently levied are exempt.

With respect to the argument that the funds levied are necessary for the support of judgment debtor, as set forth above, under CCP § 487.020 (b), property exempt from attachment includes, “Property which is necessary for the support of a defendant who is a natural person or the family of such defendant supported in whole or in part by the defendant.”

Case law has consistently interpreted this necessities exemption provision broadly in favor of the debtor, citing the legislative policy underlying the state’s wage exemption statutes, which is to ensure that regardless of a debtor’s improvidence, the debtor and his or her family will retain enough money to maintain a basic standard of living, so that the debtor may have a fair chance to remain a productive member of the community. Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1, 6; Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739, 741.

The trial court is vested with “wide discretion” in determining whether the debtor has met his burden of proof. Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739, 742.

Here, judgment debtor has submitted a financial statement indicating that judgment debtor’s monthly expenses of $2,801.00 exceed her total monthly income of $2,615.40. The financial statement submitted is incomplete, as it indicates that judgment debtor has a spouse, but the spouse’s income is not set forth. The financial statement states that the judgment debtor and the spouse are living separate and apart. [Financial Statement, para. 9].

As pointed out in the opposition, the financial statement also includes $100 in clothing expenses, $200 in transportation, $50 in laundry and cleaning and $100 in entertainment.

It has been held that automobile expenses do not necessarily qualify for an exemption under the predecessor statute which referred to the “common necessaries of life.” The court of appeal in Ratzlaff v. Portillo (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 1013, noted, “because of the availability of public transportation, home delivery service and neighborhood shopping centers, to the great majority of Americans, the automobile, albeit a great convenience, is not necessary to sustain life and cannot be viewed as a ‘common necessary of life.’”

In any case, the expenses claimed appear to be not reasonably necessary to the extent required to cover the approximate $200 per month shortfall, and it is not clear that the savings of the insurance policy proceeds has been regularly used to cover living expenses, as the check submitted is dated May 27, 2022, in the sum of $10,131.29, and the savings account sum levied is $9,279.32, which savings account does not appear to have been significantly depleted over the years.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances. Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.