Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02537/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02537-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID R. RUBY, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Plaintiff,

v.

HELEN E. RYAN and JOHN J. RYAN, 

JR.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING 

MOTION FOR ORDER 

DETERMINING CLAIM OF 

EXEMPTION AND MOTION TO 

QUASH GARNISHMENT

[ECF No. 33.]

[ECF No. 17.]

INTRODUCTION

On August 12, 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Virginia entered a default judgment in favor of David Ruby (“Plaintiff” or “Judgment 

Creditor”), Chapter 7 Trustee, in the amount of $34,093.08 against Helen Ryan and John 

Ryan, Jr. (“Judgment Debtors”), jointly and severally, and in the amount of $318,431.23 

against Helen E. Ryan, individually. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2; ECF No. 2 at 1; see also ECF 

No. 27 at 1.) On September 16, 2015, Judgment Debtor registered the judgment in this 

district and subsequently sought to execute on the judgment. (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9.) On 

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 12
2

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

November 3, 2015, Helen Ryan and Mykal Ryan, acting as Special Administrator for the 

Estate of John Ryan (“Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator”), proceeding pro se, 

submitted a claim of exemption. (ECF No. 17-2, Ex. 2 at 2–3.) On November 5, 2015, 

Helen Ryan and Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator, filed a Motion to Quash 

Garnishment/Execution and Claim Exemption (“Motion to Quash”). (ECF No. 17.) On 

March 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation denying relief 

sought by Judgment Debtors. (ECF No. 33.) 

Upon review of the moving papers, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, the papers filed in response to the Report and Recommendation, and 

the applicable law, this Court ADOPTS in part the recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge and DENIES Helen Ryan’s claim of exemption, (ECF No. 17-2, Ex. 2 at 3),

DENIES Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator’s, Motion to Quash, and GRANTS in part

and DENIES in part Helen Ryan’s Motion to Quash. (ECF No. 17). 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Writ of Execution Against Judgment Debtors Helen Ryan and John Ryan

On September 29, 2015, and October 2, 2015, Judgment Creditor requested 

abstracts of judgment, which the Court subsequently entered against Judgment Debtors. 

(ECF Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9.) On September 29, 2015, and October 2, 2015, Judgment Creditor 

filed writs of execution against Judgment Debtor Helen Ryan. (ECF Nos. 3, 7.) On 

October 28, 2015, Judgment Creditor filed a notice of levy for “[a]ll bank accounts 

owned by Helen E. Ryan and/or John J. Ryan, Jr.” (ECF No. 17-2, Ex. 1 at 2.) 

On November 3, 2015, Helen Ryan and Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator, 

proceeding pro se, submitted a claim of exemption. (ECF No. 17-2, Ex. 2 at 2–3.) On 

November 4, 2015, U.S. Bank levied $99,622.73, as well as a $100.00 garnishment fee, 

from Helen Ryan’s U.S. Bank account ending in 4226 (“U.S. Bank account x4226”). 

(ECF No. 25; ECF No. 27, Ex. 4 at 50; see also id., Ex. 4, Decl. of Helen Ryan I at 8–10; 

id., Ex. 5, Decl. of Helen Ryan II at 53.) On November 5, 2015, Mykal Ryan, Special 

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 12
3

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Administrator, and Helen Ryan filed a Motion to Quash. (ECF No. 17.) On November 9, 

2015, Helen Ryan submitted an amended claim of exemption. (ECF No. 27, Ex. 5.) 

On November 16, 2015, Judgment Creditor filed a “Response in Opposition Re: 

Objection to Claim of Exemption,” (ECF No. 21), and on November 17, 2015, a 

“Response in Opposition Re: Motion to Quash Garnishment/Execution,” (ECF No. 23). 

On November 20, 2015, Judgment Creditor filed a “Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities in Opposition to Claim of Exemption Re: US Bank Funds.” (ECF No. 26.) 

On November 30, 2015, Helen Ryan filed a “Reply in Response to the Motion to Quash; 

Opposition to Garnishment of Money from Other than the Judgment Debtor.” (ECF No. 

27.) On December 4, 2015, a “Memorandum of Garnishee” was filed with this Court, 

detailing that “no funds were available” in the levied Bank of America account, Helen 

Ryan’s Bank of America account ending in x0912 (“Bank of America account x0912”). 

(ECF No. 30.) On February 5, 2016, Helen Ryan filed an “Opposition to Garnishment of 

Money from Other than the Judgment Debtor.” (ECF No. 32.) 

On March 21, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation 

denying relief sought by Judgment Debtors. (ECF No. 33.) The Magistrate Judge 

recommends that this Court enter an Order: (1) approving and adopting the Report and 

Recommendation; and (2) denying the movants’ requests to (a) release the funds levied 

from Helen Ryan’s U.S. Bank account x4226; (b) reimburse the $100.00 garnishment fee 

to Helen Ryan’s U.S. Bank account x4226; and (c) quash Judgment Creditor’s 

garnishment actions against Helen Ryan and the Estate of John Ryan. (Id. at 20.) 

On May 27, 2016, now with counsel, Helen Ryan filed an Objection to Report and 

Recommendation. (ECF No. 38.) Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator, did not file an 

Objection. In her Objection, Helen Ryan objects to two specific actions: (1) she contends 

that “allowing [Judgment Creditor] to retain the funds levied from [U.S Bank account] 

x4226 would improperly allow Judgment Creditor a greater right to the property than

Judgment Debtor”; and (2) that “the funds in Helen Ryan’s Bank of America [] account

x0912 have been and will remain exempt from creditors.” (Id. at 4–5.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 12
4

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On that same day, May 27, 2016, Mykal Ryan, now with counsel, filed a Third 

Party Motion for a Third Party Claim of Exemption (“Third Party Motion”) as to funds 

levied from U.S. Bank account x4226. (ECF No. 39.) Mykal Ryan’s Third Party Motion 

endeavors to correct the deficiencies noted by the Magistrate Judge in Helen Ryan’s 

improper claim of exemption regarding U.S. Bank account x4226. 

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Judgment Debtor Helen 

Ryan’s claim of exemption regarding U.S. Bank account x4226 because it constitutes an 

improper third party claim.

1 Helen Ryan asserts that “[a]ll the money deposited” to U.S. 

Bank account x4226 “belongs to [] Mykal (aka) Michael Ryan,” “the judgment is not 

against Mykal,” and “[a]ll the deposits were federal benefits paid to Mykal.” (ECF No. 

27, Ex. 5 at 54; see also id. at 52.) 

Because Judgment Debtors concede that Helen Ryan’s claim of exemption is 

improper, demonstrated by Mykal Ryan’s filing of a Third Party Claim of Exemption 

concerning the same account (U.S. Bank account x4226), the Court ADOPTS the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation denying Helen Ryan’s claim of 

exemption as to U.S. Bank account x4226 as an improper third party claim of exemption. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Standard of Review of Magistrate Judge’s Order

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district 

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which 

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also United States v. 

 

1 California law provides disparate procedures for judgment debtors to claim exemption from writs of 

execution and for innocent third parties, who are not judgment debtors, to assert third party claims of 

exemption from writs of execution. Compare Cal Civ. Proc. Code §§ 703.020, 703.030, 703.520 with

Cal Civ. Proc. Code §§ 688.030, 720.110, 720.120, 720.130). “There is no statutory authorization for the 

use of third party claim procedures by named defendants in an action.” Commercial & Farmers Nat’l 

Bank v. Hetrick, 64 Cal. App. 3d 158, 165 (1976).

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 12
5

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 

(1980). Under this statute, “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings 

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 

(2003); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress 

intended to require district court review of magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, 

under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). 

II. Legal Standard for Claim of Exemption from Writ of Execution

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, a money judgment is enforced by writ 

of execution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). “The procedure on execution—and in proceedings 

supplementary to and in aid of judgment of execution—must accord with the procedure 

of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it 

applies.” Id. Under California law, a judgment creditor may enforce a money judgment 

by levying the deposit account of the judgment debtor and his spouse or registered 

domestic partner. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 699.710, 700.160. 

After a judgment creditor levies a judgment debtor’s deposit account, the judgment 

debtor and his spouse or registered domestic partner may claim the funds levied as 

exempt from the enforcement of the money judgment. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 

703.010, 703.020, 703.030. “The claim shall be made within 10 days after the date the 

notice of levy on the property claimed to be exempt was served on the judgment debtor.” 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.520(a). The exemption claimant bears the burden to establish 

the exemption. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.580(b). A claim of exemption must include the 

following: (1) the claimant’s name and mailing address; (2) the name and last known 

address of the judgment debtor if the claimant is not the judgment debtor; (3) a 

description of the property claimed to be exempt; (4) a financial statement if required by 

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 12
6

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

section 703.530;2(5) a citation to the provision relied upon for the exemption; and (6) a 

statement of the facts necessary to support the claim. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.520. An 

opposition to a claim of exemption must include: “(a) [a]n allegation either (1) that the 

property is not exempt under the provision of this chapter or other statute relied upon or 

(2) that the equity in the property claimed to be exempt is in excess of the amount 

provided in the applicable exemption”; and “(b) [a] statement of facts necessary to 

support the allegation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.560. 

Because exemption laws are (1) designed to facilitate the debtor’s financial 

rehabilitation and (2) intended to shift social welfare costs from the community to 

judgment creditors, the exemption statutes should be construed, so far as practicable, to 

the benefit of the judgment debtor. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Waters, 166 Cal. App. 4th

Supp. 1, 8 (2008) (citation omitted). However “[e]xemptions are wholly statutory and 

cannot be enlarged [or diminished] by the courts.” Id.; see also Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Shill,

206 Cal. App. 4th 1054, 1058 (2012). As a general rule, “a judgment or levy reaches only 

the interest of the debtor in the property because a judgment creditor can acquire no 

greater right in the property levied upon than that of its judgment debtor.” Regency 

Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Carolina Lanes Inc., 31 Cal. App. 4th 1323, 1330 (1995); Oxford 

St. Prop., LLC v. Rehab. Assoc., 206 Cal. App. 4th 296, 308 (2012) (“A security interest 

attaches only to whatever rights the debtor has in the collateral.”).

DISCUSSION

Judgment Debtor Helen Ryan and Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator, move to

quash Judgment Creditor’s garnishment actions against Helen Ryan and the Estate of John 

Ryan. (ECF No. 17 at 3; ECF No. 27 at 4.) 

I. Motion to Quash Judgment Creditor’s Garnishment Action Against the 

Estate of John James Ryan

 

2

“If property is claimed as exempt pursuant to a provision exempting property to the extent 

necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor, 

the claim of exemption shall include a financial statement.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.530(a). 

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 12
7

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On November 5, 2015, in a claim of exemption filed on behalf of the Estate of 

John Ryan, Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator, states that the “[e]state has no bank 

accounts and no personal property,” and that the “Superior Court of California has 

jurisdiction over [the] estate ([C]ase [No.] 37-2012-00152244-PR-LA-CTL).” (ECF No. 

17, Ex. 2 at 3.) In their joint sworn declaration, Helen Ryan and Mykal Ryan additionally 

state that “John James Ryan and/or the Estate of John James Ryan have no bank 

accounts.” (ECF No. 17 at 2.) 

The Report and Recommendation recommends that this Court deny the motion to 

quash Judgment Creditor’s garnishment actions against the Estate of John Ryan. (ECF 

No. 33 at 13.) The Report concludes, “[c]ontrary to the requirements of California law, 

[Helen and Mykal Ryan’s] claim of exemption does not identify or describe the property 

in which an interest is claimed.” (ECF No. 33 at 13 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 

720.130); see, e.g., ECF No. 17-2, Ex. 2 at 3.) Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator, did 

not file an objection. Due to Mykal Ryan’s failure to establish a claim of exemption for 

the Estate of John James Ryan, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure (“Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code”) section 703.520, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation, and DENIES the motion to quash Judgment Creditor’s garnishment 

action against the Estate of John James Ryan.

II. Motion to Quash Judgment Creditor’s Garnishment Action Against 

Judgment Debtor Helen Ryan

Helen Ryan moves to quash Judgment Creditor’s garnishment against her. (See 

ECF No. 17 at 3; ECF No. 27 at 4.) According to the Magistrate Judge, “as an initial 

matter,” it is “unclear what garnishment actions Helen Ryan is attempting to quash. (ECF 

No. 33 at 13 (citing ECF No. 27 at 4).)

3 While the garnishment actions Helen Ryan is 

 

3

In her November 5, 2015 Motion to Quash, Helen Ryan asserts that “[a]ll money in her bank 

accounts is exempt, per California and Federal law.” (ECF No. 17 at 2.) In support of her claims, Helen 

Ryan alleges that she and her deceased husband, John Ryan, had joint bank accounts funded “in their 

entirety” with “John’s retired military pay, veterans affairs disability pay[,] and social security[,] and 

Helen’s public retirement pay, private retirement pay, and social security.” (Id.) On November 3, 2015, 

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 12
8

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attempting to quash were unclear when the Report and Recommendation was filed, 

presently, based on her Objection, it is clear that Helen Ryan is attempting to quash any 

ongoing or future attempts to garnish funds from Bank of America account x0912. (See

ECF No. 38 at 5.) 

In her Objection, Helen Ryan establishes the six requirements for stating a claim of

exemption from a writ of execution. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.520. First, Helen 

Ryan establishes the claimant’s name and mailing address. (See, e.g., ECF No. 38-2, Ex. 

1 at 2 (proof of Helen Ryan’s University of California retirement pay establishing 

Judgment Debtor Helen Ryan’s name and address).) Second, Helen Ryan, Judgment 

Debtor in the instant case, establishes both her name and last known address. (Id.) Third, 

Helen Ryan provides a description of the property claimed as exempt from Judgment 

Creditor. (ECF No. 38 at 5–7 (describing in detail the “exempt” sources of the deposits 

into Bank of America account x0912).) Fourth, Helen Ryan provides a financial 

statement as required by section 703.530.

4

(See ECF No. 38-2, Exs. 1–5; ECF No. 38-3, 

Exs. 6–7 (including detailed bank statements for Bank of America account x0912,

beginning on May 1, 2013 and ending on April 30, 2016).) Fifth, Helen Ryan cites to the 

three provisions she relies upon in her claim of exemption: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (under 

federal law, social security benefits are not “subject to execution, levy, attachment, 

garnishment or other legal processes”); (2) Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 704.110(d) 

(providing that amounts received from public entities or public retirement systems are 

 

Helen Ryan filed a claim of exemption for “[p]ersonal property and real property,” stating that “[a]ll 

money used to purchase is exempt per state-federal law,” and that she and her deceased husband 

“received social security public retirement, VA disability and military retirement.” (Id.) In support of her

claim of exemption, Helen cites a number of statutory provisions: Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 704.080, 

704.110, 704.115, 704.130, 704.740; 10 U.S.C. §§ 1440, 1450; 42 U.S.C. § 407; and 38 U.S.C. § 5301. 

(Id.)

4

“If property is claimed as exempt pursuant to a provision exempting property to the extent 

necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor, 

the claim of exemption shall include a financial statement.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.530(a). 

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 12
9

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

exempt); and (3) Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 704.115(a)(3), (d)5(establishing, according 

to Helen Ryan’s Objection, that individual retirement annuities or accounts provided for 

in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are exempt). (ECF No. 38 at 5.) And finally, sixth, 

Helen Ryan provides a statement of facts necessary to support her claim of exemption.

(ECF No. 38-1, Decl. of Helen Ryan in Support of Her Objections.)

In her Objection, Helen Ryan argues that the funds in Bank of America account 

x0912 are exempt because social security benefits, public retirement benefits paid by a 

federal source, as well as individual retirement annuities or accounts provided for in the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are exempt. (ECF No. 38 at 5.) In the exhibits attached to 

her Objection, Helen Ryan discloses her Social Security Benefit Statements for 2013, 

2014, and 2015. (See ECF No. 38-2, Exs. 1–5; ECF No. 38-3, Exs. 6–7.) She does not 

include the 2016 Social Security Benefits Statement because it is not yet available. (ECF 

No. 38 at 7). Helen Ryan also includes un-redacted bank statements beginning May 2013 

and ending April 2016 in her Objection. (ECF No. 38-2, Exs. 1–5; ECF No. 38-3, Exs. 6–

7.) These un-redacted monthly statements indicate monthly deposits from Helen Ryan’s 

University of California retirement pay (“UC retirement pay”), social security benefits, 

and Morgan Stanley dividends. 

Exhibits 2–7 contain true and correct copies of Helen Ryan’s bank statements for 

Bank of America account x0912. (See, e.g., ECF No. 38-2, Ex. 2 at 5–9.) The Exhibits 

trace exempt deposits and statements beginning on May 1, 2013 and ending on April 30, 

2016. (ECF No. 38-2, Exs. 2–5; ECF No. 38-3, Exs. 6–7.)6 Helen Ryan states that from 

 

5

In citing to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 704.1159(a)(3)(d), Helen Ryan cites to a non-existent 

section of the Code. Likely, Helen Ryan intended to cite to the distinct Sections 704.115(a)(3) and 

704.115(d), respectively. 

6 Unlike Exhibits 2 through 7, which contain un-redacted copies of bank statements for Bank of 

America account x0912 beginning in May 2013, Exhibit 1 contains Helen Ryan’s Social Security 

Benefit Statement for the entirety of 2013, which reflects benefits paid in the amount of $15,091.80. 

(See ECF No. 38-2, Ex. 1 at 3.) Exhibit 1 also contains her UC Retirement Pay Statement for 2013, 

which amounted to $7,497.39. (See id., Ex. 1 at 2.) For 2013, Exhibit 1 shows that Helen Ryan’s exempt 

benefits totaled $22,589.19. (See id., Ex. 1.)

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 12
10

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

May 1, 2013 through the year’s end, Bank of America account x0912 showed total 

deposits of $23,297.23. (ECF No. 38 at 6.) She further states that $6,117.11 of these 

funds are exempt as they came from UC retirement pay, and that $9,195.00 of these funds 

are exempt as they came from social security. (Id.) The remaining $9,064.45 of these 

deposits were from her Morgan Stanley dividend. (Id.) According to Helen Ryan’s 

Objection, the only non-exempt deposits from 2013 would have been the Morgan Stanley 

dividend. (Id.) However, Helen Ryan claims that the Morgan Stanley dividend has been 

used to pay bills and the $9,064.45 no longer exists. (See id. (“Morgan Stanley amounts 

have been used to pay bills and no longer exist.”).) For the years of 2014 and 2015, as 

well as the first quarter of 2016, the Objection details similar information regarding 

deposits from exempt and potentially non-exempt sources. (See id. at 6–7; see also ECF 

No. 38-2, Exs. 2–5; ECF No. 38-3, Exs. 5–7.) 

Social security benefits received by the beneficiary and deposited into bank 

accounts are exempt. See 42 U.S.C. § 407(a); see also S&S Diversified Servs., L.L.C. v. 

Taylor, 897 F. Supp. 549, 551 (D. Wyo. 1995) (citing Philpott v. Essex Cty. Welfare Bd., 

409 U.S. 413, 416 (1973)). Judgment Creditor agrees that Social Security payments are 

exempt. (ECF No. 26 at 4.) Even if social security benefits are commingled with funds 

from other sources, so long as they are reasonably traceable to social security income, the 

benefits are protected. See 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). Thus, Helen Ryan’s social security 

benefits deposited into Bank of America account x0912 are exempt from levy. 

Public retirement benefits paid from a federal source, similar to social security 

benefits, are also exempt under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 704.110(d), which provides 

that “[a]ll amounts received by any person, a resident of the state, as a public retirement 

benefit or as a return of contributions and interest thereon from the United States or a 

public entity or from a public retirement system are exempt.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 

704.110(d). Helen Ryan’s UC retirement pay deposited into Bank of America account 

x0912 is exempt from levy. 

Section 704.115(a)(3) states that “‘private retirement plan’ means”:

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 12
11

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

self-employed retirement plans and individual retirement annuities or accounts 

provided for in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including 

individual retirement accounts qualified under Section 408 or 408A of that code, to 

the extent the amounts held in the plans, annuities, or accounts do not exceed the 

maximum amounts exempt from federal income taxation under that code.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704.115(a)(3). Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 704.115(d) states that 

“[a]fter payment, the amounts described in subdivision (b) and all contributions and 

interest thereon returned to any member of a private retirement plan are exempt.” Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code § 704.115(d). 

Helen Ryan’s Objection does not indicate that the monthly deposits from her 

Morgan Stanley dividend are linked with a private retirement account of the type

identified by section 704.115(a)(3) or section 704.115(d). In fact, Helen Ryan even 

concedes that the Morgan Stanley funds may not be exempt from levy. (ECF No. 38 at 6 

(“[T]he only funds which may not be exempt were the Morgan Stanley dividend.”).) 

Helen Ryan has not demonstrated that her Morgan Stanley dividends are exempt. 

In sum, Helen Ryan’s Morgan Stanley dividends are the only non-exempt funds 

that would be subject to levy by Judgment Creditor to satisfy the judgment entered 

against her, jointly and severally, as well as individually, in the amounts of $34,093.08 

and $318,431.23. Therefore the Court DENIES Helen Ryan’s Motion to Quash the 

garnishment actions as to the Morgan Stanley dividend. As to Helen Ryan’s social 

security benefits and UC retirement pay, the Court GRANTS her Motion to Quash the 

garnishment action. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, this Court ADOPTS in part the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. Specifically, the Court DENIES Helen Ryan’s claim of 

exemption, and DENIES Mykal Ryan, Special Administrator’s, Motion to Quash 

Judgment Creditor’s garnishment action against the Estate of John Ryan. The Court 

GRANTS Helen Ryan’s Motion to Quash Judgment Creditor’s garnishment action as to 

her social security benefits and UC retirement pay, and the Court DENIES Helen Ryan’s 

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 12
12

15-CV-2537-GPC (BLM)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Motion to Quash Judgment Creditor’s garnishment action as to the Morgan Stanley 

dividend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 4, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02537-GPC-BLM Document 50 Filed 08/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 12