Case Number: VC057694 Hearing Date: May 27, 2014 Dept: SEC

CITIZENS AUTO FINANCE v. DOLORES J. LAWRENCE, ET AL.
CASE NO.: VC057694
HEARING: 05/27/14

#2
TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff CITIZENS AUTO FINANCE’s motion for assignment order (and for order restraining judgment debtors) is GRANTED. CCP § 708.510-708.520.

It is so ordered that the following rights to payment of Judgment Debtors, DOLORES J. LAWRENCE and ROBERT F. LAWRENCE, be, and hereby are, assigned to Judgment Creditor, CITIZENS AUTO FINANCE, until such time as the judgment herein is fully satisfied or this order is amended: rental income from real property located at 3050 Royce Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; and that tenants Manuel Martinez and Kelly Jewell pay their monthly rent to CITIZENS AUTO FINANCE, to be applied to the judgment herein until such judgment is fully satisfied or this order is amended.

It is also ordered that Judgment Debtors are restrained from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment assigned in this Order.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT FAILURE BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY SUBJECT THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO BEING HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Plaintiff is ordered to personally serve this Order upon Judgment Debtors.

Plaintiff CITIZENS AUTO FINANCE (“Judgment Creditors”) received a judgment in their favor in this matter in the amount of $49,786.79 on December 15, 2011. Bank levies yielded $1,967.36 from Defendants DOLORES J. LAWRENCE and ROBERT F. LAWRENCE (“Judgment Debtors”) that were applied, but there is still now due and owing $60,431.44, plus interest accruing from April 3, 2014 and post-judgment costs incurred. (Ernest Decl., ¶3.) The judgment is final and enforcement thereof is not stayed. (Ernest Decl., ¶3.)

On August 26, 2013, Judgment Debtors were sworn and examined during a debtor examination. During this examination, Judgment Debtors indicated that they owned real property located at 3050 Royce Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. (Ernest Decl., ¶4.) They also indicated that they had tenants residing there, paying $2,300 rent to Judgment Debtors each month. (Ernest Decl., ¶4.) On April 24, 2014, Judgment Creditor’s counsel sent a letter to the tenants (Manuel Martinez and Kelly Jewell) notifying them of Judgment Creditor’s claim. (Ernest Decl., ¶5, Exhibit A.) Counsel for Judgment Creditors states that he is informed and believes that the right to payments sought to be assigned herein have not been previously assigned. (Ernest Decl., ¶6.)

Pursuant to CCP § 708.510(a), “Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor . . . all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments: . . . .
. (2) Rents.” Notice of the motion shall be served on the judgment debtor personally or by mail. CCP § 708.510(b).

In addition, “(c) Subject to subdivisions (d), (e), and (f), in determining whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment pursuant to subdivision (a), the court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including the following:
(1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor.
(2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support.
(3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment.
(4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned.” CCP § 708.510(c).

Finally, “A right to payment may be assigned pursuant to this article only to the extent necessary to satisfy the money judgment.” CCP § 708.510(d).

In this case, it seems appropriate to order Judgment Debtor’s to assign to Judgment Creditor their right to payment due from their rental property located at 3050 Royce Lane, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. There is a judgment against them in the amount of $49,786.79, they have appeared for a debtor’s examination, the proof of service indicates they were served with notice of this motion via mail on April 24, 2014, and counsel for Judgment Creditors declares that Judgment Debtors have paid nothing on this two year old judgment. (Ernest Decl., ¶7.)

In addition, pursuant to CCP § 708.520:
“(a) When an application is made pursuant to Section 708.510 or thereafter, the judgment creditor may apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned. The application shall be made on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule so requires. Otherwise, it may be made ex parte.
(b) The court may issue an order pursuant to this section upon a showing of need for the order. The court, in its discretion, may require the judgment creditor to provide an undertaking.
(c) The court may modify or vacate the order at any time with or without a hearing on such terms as are just.
(d) The order shall be personally served upon the judgment debtor and shall contain a notice to the judgment debtor that failure to comply with the order may subject the judgment debtor to being held in contempt of court.”

Here, the need for an order restraining Judgment Debtors from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned has been shown. Judgment Debtors have voluntarily paid nothing on this judgment (which is more than two years old), a bench warrant was previously issued because the Judgment Debtors repeatedly refused to attend their examination (Ernest Decl., ¶7), and Judgment Debtors need to be restrained so that the right to payment sought to be assigned will be available to be applied to the judgment.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.