Purpose and Scope

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.)

Spousal Garnishment

“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).)

Claims of Exemption

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.)