Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 21PSCV00615, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00615 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 Dept: L
Background
Plaintiff Ford Motor
Credit Company LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On September 21, 2020,
Defendants Erick Contreras (“Contreras”) and Maria Garcia (“Garcia”) (together,
“Defendants”) entered into a Retail Installment Sales Contract with Performance
Ford (“Dealership”), wherein Defendants purchased a new 2020 Ford F150, VIN #1
FTEW1 EPXLKE87751 from Dealership and agreed to make payments on same. Dealership
subsequently assigned the Contract to Cab West LLC; Plaintiff is Cab West LLC’s
servicing agent. Defendants defaulted under the terms and conditions of the
contract by, inter alia, failing to make installment payments.
On July 29, 2021,
Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Contreras,
Garcia and Does 1-100 for:
1. Possession of Personal Property and Breach of
Contract
2. Possession of Personal Property and Breach of
Contract
3. Goods Sold and Delivered
4. Book Account
5. Account Stated
On December 16,
2021, Defendants’ defaults were entered.
On July 11, 2022,
default judgment was filed.
On October 31, 2022,
an abstract of judgment and a writ of execution were issued.
Discussion
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor opposes the Claim of Exemption
submitted by Garcia.
The Notice of Filing
Claim of Exemption states it was mailed on January 25, 2023. The Notice of
Hearing on Claim of Exemption and the Notice of Opposition to Claim of
Exemption were mail-served on Garcia on February 2, 2023 and filed with the
court that day and stamped received by the levying officer on February 3, 2023.
The hearing date was originally scheduled for March 15, 2023, but subsequently
continued by the court to March 24, 2023.
It is unclear
whether or not the parties are aware of the March 24, 2023 hearing date [see
footnote]. The following ruling on the merits, then, is contingent upon the
court being provided with proof that adequate notice of the March 24, 2023
hearing date was provided.
MERITS:
The maximum amount of disposable
earnings of an individual judgment debtor for any workweek that is subject to
levy under an earnings withholding order must not exceed the lesser of the
following: (1) 25% of the individual's disposable earnings for that week or (2)
50% of the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week
exceed 40 times the state minimum hourly wage in effect at the time [i.e., $14.00
per hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees and $15.00 per hour for
employers with 26 or more employees, as of January 1, 2022; see Lab. Code, §
1182.12.]. If the local minimum hourly wage is greater than the state minimum hourly wage, the local
minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable is to be
used for this calculation. (See Ahart, supra, at ¶ 6:1170; Code Civ. Proc., §
706.050, subd. (a).) For a biweekly pay period, the multiplier used to
determine the maximum amount of disposable earnings subject to levy under an
earnings withholding order that is proportional to the above calculation is as
follows: multiply the applicable hourly minimum wage by 80 work hours. Code
Civ. Proc., § 706.050, subd. (a).) “Disposable earnings” are those earnings
remaining after deduction of any amounts required by law to be withheld. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 706.011, subd. (a).)
In
addition to the automatic exemption for nonsupport withholding orders, that portion of an
employee's earnings necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or his or
her family is exempt from nonsupport earnings withholding orders (Code Civ.
Proc., § 706.051, subds. (a),(b)).
The exemption claimant has the burden of proof. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 703.580, subd. (b).)
Garcia represents in her Claim of Exemption that all of her earnings
are needed to support herself or her family; that she is paid every two weeks
and that she is willing to have $100.00 withheld from her earnings each pay
period during the withholding period; that her gross monthly pay is $3,000.00;
that she owns the following property: $2,000.00 at U.S. Bank, $26,000.00 car
and $64,000.00 jeep and that she has no spouse. Garcia, however, fails to
provide any information as to her take-home pay or as to any other income
sources.
Additionally, Garcia represents, in ¶ 4, subdivisions
(a)-(m) of her Financial Statement, that she has $1,760.00 on monthly expenses,
yet somehow concludes, in subdivision (n) (which asks for Garcia to add
(a)-(m)) that her total monthly expenses are $3,110.00.
Garcia also represents, in ¶ 5 of her Financial Statement,
that she owes $63,000.00, payable in monthly payments of $850.00, for the Jeep,
but fails to identify any creditor. She represents that she owes $26,000.00,
payable in monthly payments of $500.00, for a “can am,” but again fails to
identify any creditor. These purported debts were not identified in ¶ 4,
subdivision (j).
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, in turn, advises that it has
not received the response to the earnings withholding order and is unaware of
Garcia’s salary. Plaintiff/Judgment also points out that $1,550/month is, per
Garcia’s representations, directed towards transportation, a new car note and a
“can am,” which denotes an ability to pay towards the judgment.
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor further points out that Garcia is impermissibly
attempting to self-prioritize debts.
Garcia has failed to carry her burden of establishing entitlement
to an exemption. The claim of exemption
is denied.