Case Number: EC059974    Hearing Date: July 25, 2014    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING (7-25-14)
#13
EC 059974
UNIFUND CCR v. JOHNSON

Defendant’s Claim of Exemption
Claim of exemption is granted in part. The court finds that taking into account the portion of the judgment debtor’s earnings which are necessary for the support of the judgment debtor the amount to be garnished is $500 per month. The payments for the months of May 2014, June 2014 and July 2014 to be forwarded to the judgment creditor in the sum of $1,500, from the $3,052.99 being held by the sheriff. The balance, $1,552.99 is to be paid to the judgment debtor.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The action seeks to collect sums allegedly due from defendant pursuant to a written credit card agreement.

On October 2, 2013, Default was entered by court judgment against defendant in the sum of $37,362.69 plus $700 in costs.

ANALYSIS:
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.

Under CCP section 706.050:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the amount of earnings of a judgment debtor exempt from the levy of an earnings withholding order shall be that amount that may not be withheld from the judgment debtor’s earnings under federal law in Section 1673(a) of Title 15 of the United States Code.”

15 USC 1673 (a) provides:
“(a) Maximum allowable garnishment. Except as provided in subsection (b) and in section 305 [15 USCS § 1675], the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment may not exceed
(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or
(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [29 USCS § 206(a)(1)] in effect at the time the earnings are payable,
whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).”

Under 29 USC 206(a)(1)(C), the federal minimum hourly wage is currently $7.25 per hour.

Here, disposable earnings are claimed to be $3,629.00. 25% of this amount is $907.25 per month, which would be the approximate amount to be garnished without an exemption order.

The statement claims total monthly income of $3,629 and expenses of $3,282.00, leaving at least $347.00 per month to be garnished to be applied toward this debt.

The judgment creditor argues that income is understated or expenses are overstated, or there is some other source of income given that the expenses exceed income by a considerable amount. This appears to be an argument cut and pasted from another opposition since judgment debtor appears to be living within his means, with some sum left every month.

The motion offers to permit $200 per month to be garnished, and the opposition does not indicate any alternative sum which would be acceptable. Monthly withholding in the sum of $500 appears reasonable from this showing.

It also appears that the sheriff is holding $3,052.99 from the RPS served on 5/6/14. The court orders that the monthly payments for May, June and July be paid from this sum, and the balance released to the judgment debtor, with withholding of the court ordered sum to begin in August.