Hank Minardo v. R&S Landscape Inc., CV09-0264

Hearing: Claim of Exemption

Date: April 26, 2018

On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff Hank Minardo (“Plaintiff”) obtained a default judgment against Defendant Ryan Packer (“Defendant”) in the amount of $57,493.07, plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 10% annually. Defendant thereafter filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff obtained a judgment in United States Bankruptcy Court that the default judgment was a non-dischargeable debt under federal bankruptcy law. On October 6, 2017, the bankruptcy court returned the 2014 judgment to this Court.

On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff was issued an Abstract of Judgment in the amount of $57,493.07 and a Writ of Execution in the amount of $57,968.07.

Plaintiff then executed a bank levy on two of Defendant’s accounts at Rabobank, N.A. (Code Civ. Proc., § 700.040.) As of February 6, 2018, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department is holding $8,512.47.

Defendant filed a claim of exemption, contending the levied funds are “reasonably necessary and used by me in my trade and business.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.060(a)(1).) Defendant claims he uses the levied funds “exclusively for my business, California Cast Stone, by which I earn my livelihood.” Defendant also checks the box indicating the property claimed to be exempt is “tools, implements, materials, uniforms, furnishings, books, equipment, a commercial motor vehicle, a vessel, or other personal property used in the trade, business or profession of the judgment debtor or spouse.”

Plaintiff opposes, arguing that Defendant failed to demonstrate that either of the levied accounts are business banking accounts, or that any of the levied funds are “reasonably necessary to or actually used” in Defendant’s trade or business. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure, section 703.520, which requires that Defendant provide a description of the property claimed to be exempt, as well as a description of “all other property of the same type” he owns to which the exemption might apply.

Exemptions are creatures of statute. No property is exempt from enforcement unless specifically made so by law; courts may not increase the statutory exemptions. (Estate of Brown (1899) 123 Cal. 399, 401; Estate of Silverman (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 180, 183.) 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 Code of Civ. Proc., § 706.106 [court need not make findings].)