Case Number: EC062514    Hearing Date: October 31, 2014    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING (10/31/14)
#7
EC 062514
L.A. COMMERCIAL GROUP v. ENVIRO-TECH SOLUTIONS

Defendant Monica S. Navarro’s Claim of Exemption
Claim of exemption is DENIED. There is no evidence submitted establishing that the fund is a direct deposit account, one into which social security benefits are directly deposited, or that the amount on deposit consists solely of social security benefits.

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Exemption from enforcement of judgment by levy of bank funds

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiff brought this action for breach of contract and common counts to collect a sum allegedly due from defendant to plaintiff’s assignor for work, labor, services and materials provided to defendants, which were paid for by a check returned marked nonsufficient funds.

On July 23, 2014, the court entered judgment by default against defendants Enviro-Tech Solutions, Inc. and Monica S. Navarro in the sum of $59,850.67.

Evidently, the sheriff has levied on a bank account of the judgment debtor, claimant Monica Navarro.

ANALYSIS:
Under CCP section 703.580(c), at a hearing on a claim for exemption
“The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. If not satisfied, the court shall order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.”

Under CCP section 703.580(b), at a hearing on a claim of exemption, “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 2nd Dist.) 14 Cal.App.3d 1013.

The claim of exemption is brought under CCP §704.080 (incorrectly designated by the claimant as section 704.80), which provides an exemption for “a deposit account in which payments of public benefits or social security benefits are directly deposited by the government or its agents.” Under subdivision (b), “A deposit account is exempt without making a claim” in specified amounts, including “(2) Two thousand four hundred twenty-five dollars ($2,425) where one depositor is the designated payee of directly deposited social security payments.” Under subdivision (c), “The amount of a deposit account that exceeds the exemption provided in subdivision (b) is exempt to the extent that it consists of payments of public benefits or social security benefits.”

All that has been provided here is the claim form which contains a declaration by the debtor indicating that she claims property to be exempt consisting of social security for three kids.

It appears from the Financial Statement that there is some claim that plaintiff’s spouse is permanently disabled, and accounts are benefits for her 18 and 16 year old daughters. There is no clear evidence that the fund is a direct deposit account, one into which social security benefits are directly deposited, or that the amount on deposit consists solely of social security benefits. The claim is therefore denied without prejudice subject to renewal if and as appropriate.