Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/wage-garnishment-laws-350
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 01:59:51
Document Index: 557800766

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§706', '§910', '§ 706', '§704', '§704', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 1673', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§706', '§706', '§582', '§706', '§706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706']

What is the Wage Garnishment Law (Civ. Code, Sec. 706.010 et seq.)?
The Wage Garnishment Law applies to "earnings," meaning compensation payable by an employer to an employee for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, or otherwise; an "employer" is a person for whom the employee performs services and includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, and a public entity. (Sec. 706.011(a), (c), (d), (g).) The law prohibits an employer from withholding the earnings of an employee for payment of a debt, unless appropriate judicial procedures are followed. (Sec. 706.020.)
“This rule applies to public entities as well as private persons.” (Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 17 West's Ann. Code Civ. Proc. (2009 ed.) foll. Sec. 706.020, at 223.) In California State Employees' Assn. v. State of California (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 374, the court considered the issue of whether a public entity may seize its employees' wages. There, the state illegally recouped erroneous salary advances by deducting the debt from employee paychecks. (Id.) The Court of Appeal found that the Wage Garnishment Law "provides the exclusive judicial procedure" for executing against the wages of employees, and the Attachment Law “expressly prohibits any prejudgment attachment or levy of execution against wages.” (Id. at 377; Randone v. Appellate Department (1971) 5 Cal.3d 536, at fn. 6.)
“Except for an earning assignment order for support, the earnings of an employee shall not be required to be withheld by an employer for payment of a debt by means of any judicial procedure other than pursuant to this chapter.” (Civ. Code, Sec. 706.020.) “Both the wage garnishment law and the attachment law protect wages from creditors. The wage garnishment law provides the exclusive judicial procedure by which a judgment creditor can execute against the wages of a judgment debtor, except for cases of judgments or orders for support. (California State Employees’ Assn. v. State of California (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 374, 377.) It limits the amount of earnings which may be garnished in satisfaction of a judgment and establishes certain exemptions from earnings which may not be garnished.” (Id.)
“An earnings withholding order may not be issued against the earnings of the spouse of the judgment debtor except by court order upon noticed motion.” (Civ. Code, Sec. 706.109.)
Preemption and Garnishment Priority
The Wage Garnishment Law has no effect on matters that are preempted by federal law. (Sec. 706.020 [Law Revision Comm. Comments].)
The Wage Garnishment Law is set forth in section 706.010 et seq. support and another earnings withholding order as long as the amount withheld for both does not exceed the amount allowed under section 706.050 et seq. (Sec. 706.031(d).) Thus, the general rule set forth in section 706.023(c) [which permits only one wage garnishment order at a time] does not apply to earnings withholding orders for support. As for earnings withholding order for taxes, section 706.077 requires that an employer served with a withholding order for taxes must “cease to withhold earnings pursuant to any prior earnings withholding order” [except one for support]. In other words, an earnings withholding order for taxes takes precedence over any other earnings withholding order and is subject to the Wage Garnishment Law. As such, it is also subject to the general rule set forth in section 706.023 which permits only one wage garnishment order at a time. Defendant’s claim of exemption is granted on the ground Plaintiff’s earnings withholding order is ineffective under section 706.023 because there is a prior earnings withholding order for taxes currently in place. 5 The Wage Garnishment Law contemplates both an earnings withholding order for support and an earnings withholding order for taxes as long as the amount withheld for both does not exceed the amount allowed under section 706.070. (Sec. 706.031(e).)
Under Civ. Code, Sec. 706.105, a claimant after service of a withholding order may make a claim of exemption. Under Civ. Code, Sec. 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, LeFont v. Ranin (1959) 14 Cal.App.3d 1013.)
The claim of exemption is brought under Civ. Code, Sec. 706.051, which provides an exemption for “the portion of the judgment debtor’s earnings which 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.”
Case law has consistently interpreted this 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; Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739.)
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.)
Useful Rulings on Wage Garnishment Laws
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY VS BARNREITER, MATTHEW H
ACIC v. Barnreiter, et al. Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Co.’s Motion for Wage Garnishment Order is GRANTED. I. Background On April 20, 2011, a default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Co. (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendant Matthew H. Barnreiter (“Judgment Debtor”). On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Wage Garnishment Order...
..achment law protect wages from creditors. The wage garnishment law provides the exclusive judicial procedure by which a judgment creditor can execute against the wages of a judgment debtor, except for cases of judgments or orders for support. [Citation.] It limits the amount of earnings which may be garnished in satisfaction of a judgment and establishes certain exemptions from earnings which may...
INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS RUVALCABA, ANTONIO
MOTION FOR WAGE GARNISHMENT ORDER AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S SPOUSE (CCP § 706.120 et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor Infinity Insurance Company’s Motion for Wage Garnishment Order Against Judgment Debtor’s Spouse is CONTINUED to Dec. 3, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94. ANALYSIS: I. Background On March 26, 2015, a default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Credito...
..ent Order (the “Motion”) seeking an order to garnish Judgment Debtor’s spouse’s wages under CCP § 706.109. II. Legal Standards “Except for an earning assignment order for support, the earnings of an employee shall not be required to be withheld by an employer for payment of a debt by means of any judicial procedure other than pursuant to this chapter.” (CCP § 706.020.) “Both the wage garnishment...
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. SHINDONNA L. FRY
TENTATIVE RULING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (WAGE GARNISHMENT) [CCP706.051, 706.124] Calendar: 3 Date: 11/4/16 Case No: EC 044274 Case Name: Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Fry Moving Party: Defendant/Judgment debtor Shindonna L. Fry Responding Party: Plaintiff/Judgment creditor Hartford Casualty Insurance Company RULING: Claim of exem...
..r month. RELIEF REQUESTED: Exemption from enforcement of judgment by Wage Garnishment SUMMARY OF FACTS: This action was filed by plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company to collect sums it paid to its insured, Survival Insurance, Inc. pursuant to a claim that its employee, defendant Shindonna Fry embezzled, misappropriated funds, converted property and made purchases for personal use on...
Danielle Conn v. Thomas Jeffrey Edwards
In May 2015, Danielle Conn (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against Thomas Edwards (“Defendant”). A default judgment for possession was issued on June 11, 2015; and a court judgment for monetary damages was entered on August 7, 2015, in the amount of $2,213.90. The most recent Writ of Execution was issued on May 7, 2018, in the same amount as the judgment. Plaintiff is attempting...
..net monthly expenses ($1,850) exceed his net monthly income ($1,750). The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department reports that as of June 12, 2018, it was not holding any funds. Plaintiff opposes the claim for exemption (a) arguing that Defendant has underreported his monthly earnings by not including tips he received for his work as a waiter and bartender, and listing only his hourly wages;...
SIERRA RECEIVABLES MGMT VS. CONN, ET AL
Tentative Ruling on Claim of Exemption: Default judgment in the amount of $5,134.15 was entered against debtor and his spouse on August 24, 2014. A writ of execution issued on January 30, 2018 for a total sum of $6,527.96. Debtor seeks to exempt all earnings from wage garnishment He has a spouse and no minor dependents. His gross monthly income is $5,427.81 and he is paid twice per month. A claim...
..withheld.”). Under California law, the portion of a judgment debtor’s earnings that the debtor proves is necessary for his own support and that of his family is also exempt from wage garnishment. See CCP § 706.051(b). An exemption may be claimed only once, unless there has been a “material change in circumstances” (i.e., in the debtor's income or needs) during the withholding period. CCP § 706.105...
MCT GROUP vs Capps
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 27, 2019 EVENT DATE: 03/29/2019 EVENT TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT.: N-26 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Pamela M Parker CASE NO.: 37-2014-00043811-CL-CL-NC CASE T...
..ee of Beach Drapery Service, Inc. As such, the monies she receives from Beach Drapery Service, Inc. are not subject to a wage garnishment. The Court has considered the supplemental documents Judgment Creditor has submitted to the Court. These document simply show that an earnings withholding order and a "Sheriff's Execution – Third Party" were served on Beach Drapery Service. These documents do n...
Recent Rulings on Wage Garnishment Laws
Civil - Limited (89)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (24)
Opposition To Claim Of Exemption - Levy (Civil) (16)
Opposition To Claim Of Exemption - Wage Garnishment (Civil) (32)
J. William Mclafferty (9)
Kevin R. Culhane (487)
Marjorie Koller (68)
Sacramento County, CA (564)
San Diego County, CA (80)
Ventura County, CA (106)
SACOR FINANCIAL, INC. VS. JO HOON SHIN
(CCP §706.109.) In general, “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.” (Fam. Code §910(a).)
MOTION FOR WITHHOLDING ORDER AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S SPOUSE (CCP § 706.109, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Sarcor Financial, Inc.’s Motion for Order Granting an Earnings Withholding on the Spouse of Judgment Debtor is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.
ADI GREENBERG, ET AL VS. FAY HONG, ET AL
USC 562; (4) CCP 706.050; (5) CCP 706.051; (6) CCP §704.060; (7) CCP §704.140. There is no wage garnishment at issue. A.
Code of Civil Procedure section 706.109 states that an earnings withholding order may not be issued against the earnings of the spouse of the judgment debtor except by court order upon noticed motion. Here, Petitioner has filed such a noticed motion. The Court notes that Petitioner has included a valid Proof of Service, demonstrating that she has served the Spouse by personal service.
., § 706.051(a),(b).) Thus, under appropriate circumstances, an employee may be able to exempt all of his or his earnings from a nonsupport withholding order. (Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 6:1178.) A judge is vested with broad discretion in determining whether the debtor has proven entitlement to an exemption. (Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739, 741; see also § 706.106 [court need not make findings].)
CACH, LLC V. SIMMONS
(Code of Civil Procedure, § 706.105(c).) “A judgment creditor who desires to contest a claim of exemption shall, within 10 days after the date of the mailing of the notice of claim of exemption, file with the levying officer a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 706.105(d).) “If a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption is filed with the levying officer within the 10-day period, the judgment creditor is entitled to a hearing on the claim of exemption.
VEROS CREDIT LLC VS. CESENA
. § 706.105(g).)
CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES INC VS MONICA MAHMOUD
California's wage garnishment law "limits the amount of earnings which may be garnished in satisfaction of a judgment...." (California State Employee's Assn. v. State of California (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 374, 377.) Generally a garnishment may not exceed 25 percent of a worker's "disposable earnings." (15 U.S.C. § 1673; Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.)
Proc. § 706.020.) “Both the wage garnishment law and the attachment law protect wages from creditors. The wage garnishment law provides the exclusive judicial procedure by which a judgment creditor can execute against the wages of a judgment debtor, except for cases of judgments or orders for support. [Citation.] It limits the amount of earnings which may be garnished in satisfaction of a judgment and establishes certain exemptions from earnings which may not be garnished. [Citation.]”
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY V. SIDNEY RODRIGUEZ
., §§ 706.023(c), 706.072(a), 706.077. The Judgment Creditor is to prepare the order.
“Both the wage garnishment law and the attachment law protect wages from creditors. The wage garnishment law provides the exclusive judicial procedure by which a judgment creditor can execute against the wages of a judgment debtor, except for cases of judgments or orders for support. [Citation.] It limits the amount of earnings which may be garnished in satisfaction of a judgment and establishes certain exemptions from earnings which may not be garnished. [Citation.]” (California State Employees’ Assn. v.
CREDIT BUREAU OF SANTA MARIA V. LOPEZ
[3] The hardship exemption contained in CCP § 706.051 does not apply to a bank levy.
MOTION FOR EARNINGS WITHHOLDING ORDER (CCP §§ 706.108, 706.109) TENTATIVE RULING: Judgment Creditor Musick, Peeler, & Garrett, LLP’s Motion for an Order Assigning Spouses Wages is GRANTED . I. Background On September 2, 2013, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Musick, Peeler, & Garrett, LLP (“Judgment Creditor”) filed a collections action against Defendants/Judgment Debtors Los Angeles Transportation Group, Inc. (“LATG”) and Sam Jeldi (“Jeldi”) (collectively, “Judgment Debtors”).
RAFIK AYVAZIAN VS TURBO CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC.
Plaintiff opposes the claim on the grounds that (1) the funds captured from Khodadian’s checking account are unrelated to any exemption under §706.010, 706.011, or 703.080; (2) the financial statement in the claim form is incomplete, as information about the value of Khodadian’s vehicle, insurance costs, and etc. are incomplete; and finally (3) Plaintiff urges the Court not to credit the information in the financial statement, as Khodadian states that she is unmarried, but a social media post indicates that
CACH LLC VS. GLENN WEST
Code of Civil Procedure §706.051 and §582.5 (accompanied by a Financial Statement). Moving party to give notice of this court's ruling.
VICTOR H. OLIVEROS VS AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT, INC.
(CCP §706.109.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves for issuance of an earnings withholding order against Bella Ambrova. According to Plaintiff, Judgment Debtor Karen Mekteryan and Bella Ambrova are husband and wife, and live together at their residence. Plaintiff’s counsel, David J. Miller, states that upon information and belief, Bella Ambrova is employed by Queen B Nail Salon in Glendale, California. (Miller Decl., ¶4.) However, no admissible proof of their marital status has been provided.
CAPITAL ONE BANK VS THOMES
However, while CCP section 706.051 provides for an exemption for amounts necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and her family, this code section applies only to wage garnishments. (Section 706.051 is part of Chapter 5: "Wage Garnishments.") Therefore, it has no application to the bank levy at issue here. Defendant has not identified a code section applicable to a bank levy that exempts property to the extent necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and her dependents.
Wage Garnishment Law The Wage Garnishment Law (codified at CCP section 706.010 et seq.) provides the exclusive procedure for withholding an employees’ earnings, except for an earning assignment order of support. Earnings are defined as compensation payable by an employer to an employee for personal services performed by such employee, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise. CCP §706.011.
CALVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC VS. SANCHEZ
CCP § 706.051. Defendant/Judgment Debtor's wages may be garnished in the total amount of $100.00 PER MONTH ($25.00 per pay period), with all remaining wages being exempt from garnishment. Moving party to give notice of this court's ruling.
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC VS. ANNE J. WEST
In light of this withdrawal, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 706.051, the levying ofﬁcer shall immediately release the property to the extent it is claimed exempt, Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 1.10(B) to contest the tentative decision.
HANMI BANK VS. RS FOOD MART INC.
Code of Civil Procedure section 706.051, subdivision (b), provides that “the 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…” “Necessary” normally includes housing costs, food, insurance, and automobile costs, but the “determination of what is ‘necessary’ for the support of the judgment debtor or his family has not been subject
CAVALRY SPV I LLC VS. SHIELDS
CCP § 706.023(c) states: "If an earnings withholding order is served while an employer is required to comply with another earnings withholding order with respect to the earnings of the same employee, the subsequent order is ineffective and the employer shall not withhold earnings pursuant to the subsequent order." Here, Defendant states that another earnings withholding order is already in effect. As such, any subsequent order by this Court would be ineffective.
INVESTMENT RETRIEVERS INC VS. KIPNIS
., § 706.109.)
., entitled “Paid earnings; earnings withholding order; wage assignment for support”), 706.050 (entitled “Maximum amount of disposable earnings of an individual judgment debtor subject to levy”), 706.051 (entitled “Amount necessary for support of judgment debtor or family; exemption”) and 15 U.S.C. 1673(a) (entitled “Restriction on garnishment”) as the basis for the exemptions.
MOTION TO GARNISH WAGES (CCP § 706.109) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Strategic Funding Source, Inc.’s Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiff to Garnish Wages of Judgment Debtor’s Spouse is GRANTED. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Strategic Funding Source, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and breach of personal guaranty against Defendants JBM Investments, Inc. and Jackson Mosley (“Defendant Mosley”) on June 20, 2012.