Court Opinion

ID: 9718361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:21:38.101821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:13.174114
License: Public Domain

SIMS, J.
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the revised attachment law was aimed at relieving individuals from attachment for debts incurred in connection with the purchase of consumer goods. (See memorandum in support of Sen. Bill No. 1048, as set forth in appendix to Gill v. De Sanz (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 457, at pp. 469-472 [125 Cal.Rptr. 384], particularly comment to § 537.2; Cal. Law Revision Com., Recommendation Relating to Prejudgment Attachment (1973) pp. 722-723; and id., Recommendation Relating to Revision of the Attachment Law (1975) pp. 808-809.) In Advance Transformer Co. v. Superior Court (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 127 [118 Cal.Rptr. 350], upon which the majority opinion relies, the court refers to several precedents where trading in securities has been held to be engaging in business. (See 44 Cal.App.3d at pp. 136-139; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Nubar (4th Cir. 1950) 185 F.2d 584, 588-589 [cert. den. (1951) 341 U.S. 925 (95 L.Ed. 1357, 71 S.Ct. 796)]; Washburn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (8th Cir. 1931) 51 F.2d 949, 953-954; and Clancy v. First National Bank of Colorado Springs (10th Cir. 1969) 408 F.2d 899, 901-902 [certden. (1969) 396 U.S. 958 (24 L.Ed.2d 422, 90 S.Ct. 430)]. Cf. Whipple v. Commissioner (1963) 373 U.S. 193 , 202 [10 L.Ed.2d 288, 294, 83 S.Ct. 1168]; and Higgins v. Commissioner (1941) 312 U.S. 212, 217-218 [85 L.Ed. 783, 787-788, 61 S.Ct. 475].)
Defendant Robert L. Haisman’s admission that he was engaged in business as a securities salesman, in my opinion, does not render his property subject to attachment for the debt he allegedly incurred as a trader in securities. He further admits that during July 1974 he authorized and directed plaintiff to act as his agent to purchase and sell certain stocks and other securities. In defendant’s second affirmative defense he alleged, “Plaintiff and each defendant, pursuant to their agreement and the representations of plaintiff, followed a course of selling call options and purchasing warrants until on or about October 24, 1974.”
*269In my opinion the foregoing conduct demonstrates that defendant was engaged in the business of trading in securities, not as a consumer for investment, but for the realization of his individual profit.
Since the action is for the unsecured balance of the trading account the attachment was not barred by the provisions of section 537.1, subdivision (a)(4), of the Code of Civil Procedure.
I would reverse the order of the lower court.