Wage Garnishment Law

Useful Rulings on Wage Garnishment Laws

Recent Rulings on Wage Garnishment Laws

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DENISE SESCO VS JULIO CESAR VEJARIEL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

CASHCALL, INC. V. NICHOLSON

., § 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].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

VEROS CREDIT LLC VS. CESENA

. § 706.105(g).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

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.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.]”

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY V. SIDNEY RODRIGUEZ

., §§ 706.023(c), 706.072(a), 706.077. The Judgment Creditor is to prepare the order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

“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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

CREDIT BUREAU OF SANTA MARIA V. LOPEZ

[3] The hardship exemption contained in CCP § 706.051 does not apply to a bank levy.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

EDWARD G. EVERETT, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

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

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2019

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

INVESTMENT RETRIEVERS INC VS. KIPNIS

., § 706.109.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

PRIDE ACQUISTIIONS, LLC VS EVERETT Y PUNZALAN

., 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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 40     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.