Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV01019, Date: 2024-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01019, Date: 2024-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Kyle Patterson seeks to exempt his entire paycheck from garnishment. Plaintiffs Joan Beharie and Carlos Beharie, as trustees of the QPR Trust, oppose the claim.

A judgment debtor whose wages are being garnished to satisfy a judgment may apply to the court for an exemption. (Code Civ. Proc., § 706.105.) “[T]he portion of the judgment debtor's earnings that the judgment debtor proves is necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor's family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor is exempt from levy under this chapter." (Id., § 706.051, subd. (b).)

"The determination of what is ‘necessary’ for the support of the judgment debtor or his family has not been subject to a precise definition and differs with each debtor [Citations].” (J. J. MacIntyre Co. v. Duren (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 18.) Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure section 706.106 states that “[n]o findings are required” in court proceedings on claims for exemption. (Code Civ. Proc., § 706.106.) The Court of Appeal articulated some examples of what other courts had found to be “necessaries.” (Sanker v. Humborg (1941) 48 Cal.App.2d 205, 207.) They included “[p]roper medical attention,” domestic services, “service of a nurse,” a fur coat, dental services, “services of a nurse girl,” and “legal services rendered an incompetent wife in restoring her to competency . . .” (Id., 207–208.)

Defendant’s total monthly income is $7,123.78 and he claims that his current income only leaves him with less than $700 a month for food, gas, and utilities. (Notice of Opp., Ex. 1.) Defendant also claims monthly expenses of $13,412. (Ibid.)

However, parts of Defendant’s claim are inconsistent. First, he states that $672.72 is deducted every month from his paycheck for “medical and dental” expenses (Claim, Item 2b(2)) and that his monthly medical and dental payments are $400 and monthly insurance expenses are $300 (Claim, Item 4e, 4f). However, he states in Attachment 6 that he was approved for Medicaid on June 14, 2024, and that family medical expenses are now being covered by Medicaid, so Defendant’s monthly take-home pay should be increased and his monthly expenses would be reduced.

Also, Defendant’s claimed expenses for utilities and telephone ($700), school and childcare ($2,000), transportation & auto expenses ($1,000), and laundry and cleaning ($300) do not appear reasonable, even for a family of 6. For instance, although Defendant has four children, they are 13, 15, 18, and 19 years old. Therefore, it is unclear why he needs to spend $2,000 a month on school and childcare. Additionally, a monthly expense of $1,000 for “transportation and auto” appears excessive because Defendant did not list any car payments.

The Court also inquires whether Julianna Patterson has any income because her income is relevant to determining how much disposable income Defendant actually has each month. Plaintiff submits Julianna Patterson’s rental application on which she reported an annual income of $240,000. This conflicts with Defendant’s financial statement which represents that Julianna Patterson is a homemaker without any income.

If, at the hearing, Defendant can show why his listed expenses are reasonable and necessary, the Court will continue the hearing to allow Defendant to provide additional evidence to corroborate his claims. Otherwise, the claim of exemption is denied.

The Court separately notes that Plaintiff has improperly issued a subpoena duces tecum to Defendant in what appears to be an attempt to conduct a debtor examination. However, examinations of judgment debtors are governed by CCP 708.110 and the Judicial Council has adopted for mandatory use a form that serves as both the application and examination order to be served on the judgment debtor. This form, EJ-125, is available on the Judicial Council’s website. Accordingly, the Court strikes the subpoena from the docket.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.