Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV01341 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01341, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01341 Hearing Date: May 23, 2023 Dept: G

Defendant Todd Lane’s Claim of Exemption

Respondent: Plaintiff Olivia Lee

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Todd Lane’s Claim of Exemption is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 704.220.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract. On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff Olivia Lee filed a complaint against Defendant Todd Lane. After Defendant entered default on November 22, the court entered a judgment for Plaintiff on March 8, 2023, in the amount of $39,397.22.

On April 12, 2023, Defendant filed a claim of exemption with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) for a Morgan Stanley Private Bank account and a Bank of America account. Plaintiff filed a notice of opposition and a hearing on Defendant’s claims is set for May 23.

ANALYSIS

Defendant claims exemption with regards to levies against Defendant’s two bank accounts. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s claim of exemption.

Legal Analysis

At a hearing on a claim of exemption, “the [judgment debtor] has the burden of proof” in demonstrating that the property claimed exempt is indeed exempt. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 703.520, subd. (b), 703.580, subds. (b), (c).) In meeting this burden, the judgment debtor 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. (Le Font v. Rankin (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 433, 435.) ¿Generally, “common necessaries of life . . . means essentials commonly required by all persons for the sustenance of life, whatever their employment status and includes medical care.” (J. J. MacIntyre Co. v. Duren (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 19.)

Discussion

Defendant’s claim of exemption cites a total of ten statutes as support including 15 U.S.C. section 1673, subdivision (a); Welfare and Institutions Code section 17409; and Code of Civil Procedure sections 704.010, 704.060, 704.070, 704.170, 704.220, 704.225, 706.050, and 706.051. Of these ten statutes, five are not relevant to this claim of exemption as they do not involve levies on bank accounts. (15 U.S.C. § 1673, subd. (a) [wage garnishment]; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 704.010 [motor vehicles], 704.060 [personal property for use in a trade, business, or profession], 706.050 [earnings under a withholding order], 706.51 [earnings under a withholding order].) While Defendant’s claim of exemption does reference various motor vehicles and tools, it is unclear why Defendant is seeking a claim of exemption with regards to these items when the memos from the LASD only reference levies on two bank accounts.

While Welfare and Institutions Code section 17409 and Code of Civil Procedure section 704.170 allow exemptions for welfare or charity benefits, Defendant claims a monthly income of $1,800 from “Welfare, Yard Sale, Waste Collector” and does not specify which amount is attributable to each source and what welfare benefits are subject to levy.

Code of Civil Procedure section 704.070 allows “[p]aid earnings that can be traced into deposit accounts or in the form of cash or its equivalent” to be exempt if they were subject to an earnings withholding order or assignment order and disposable earnings to be exempt if they were not subject to levy pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 706.050 or an earnings withholding or assignment order. Here, Defendant does not specify how this criteria is met and does not provide any tracing of the levied funds as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 703.080.

Last, Code of Civil Procedure section 704.220 states “Money in the judgment debtor’s deposit account in an amount equal to or less than the minimum basic 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.220, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff claims the current amount of exemption pursuant to this section is $1,947 according to Judicial Council Form EJ-156. While Plaintiff claims there is no information on the amounts and sources of funds levied, the LASD’s memos list two bank levies of $187.43. Defendant’s financial statement also claims Defendant only has $20.00 spread across two bank accounts. Based on the information provided to the court, it appears the funds in Defendant’s bank account fall far below the maximum exemption allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 704.220.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s claim of exemption.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s claim of exemption is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 704.220.