PERFECTION PAINT PRODUCTS v. JOHNSON

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Docket No. 17989.

Attorney(S)

Jane H. Van Hook for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

Judges

PETERS, P.J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Perfection Paint Products obtained a final judgment against Girthon Johnson for over $3,800. The plaintiff levied execution on the defendant's wages. The defendant claimed a full exemption of his wages on the basis that all earnings were necessary for the support of his family, supported by an affidavit. The plaintiff opposed this claim with its own affidavit. After a hearing (for which no transcript was provided), the Superior Court of Alameda County issued a minute order stating that $38 of the defendant's monthly wages was subject to execution. The defendant appealed this order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendant is entitled to an exemption of all his wages under section 690.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that all his earnings are necessary for the support of his family.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that $38 of the defendant's monthly wages are subject to execution.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant claimed that under section 690.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all of his wages are exempt because they are necessary for the support of his family.
He asserted that his monthly income was $348 while his necessary monthly expenses were $375.50, including installment contracts and incidentals.
He and his wife testified that his wife also earned approximately $16 weekly from intermittent domestic work.
He argued that as a matter of law, all his wages should be exempt from execution.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147	Accepting appellant's statement of facts as true when respondent fails to file a brief.	The court acknowledged it may assume the appellant's points are meritorious but must still examine the brief to decide if reversal is warranted.
Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136	Same as above regarding acceptance of appellant's facts.	Supported the court's procedural approach to reviewing the appeal without a respondent brief.
Bailey v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. 548	Exemption statutes aim to allow debtors to maintain a basic standard of living.	Used to explain the purpose behind wage exemption laws.
Avilla v. Avilla, 81 Cal.App.2d 210	Same principle as Bailey regarding the debtor's right to maintain basic living standards.	Reinforced the liberal construction of exemption statutes.
Holmes v. Marshall, 145 Cal. 777	Statutes exempting wages should be liberally construed to achieve their remedial purpose.	Supported the court's interpretative approach to the exemption statute.
Van Lue v. Wahrlich-Cornett Co., 12 Cal.App. 749	Same as Holmes, emphasizing liberal construction of exemption laws.	Further supported the court's interpretive stance.
Carter v. Carter, 55 Cal.App.2d 13	The burden of proof to establish exemption of wages lies with the judgment debtor.	Clarified the appellant's burden in proving entitlement to exemption.
Bertozzi v. Swisher, 27 Cal.App.2d 739	Same as Carter, regarding burden of proof on exemption claims.	Supported the court’s emphasis on appellant’s burden.
Murphy v. Harris, 77 Cal. 194	Burden of proof on debtor to establish exemption.	Used to reinforce the principle of burden allocation.
Sanker v. Humborg, 48 Cal.App.2d 205	Trial court has wide discretion in determining what wages are necessary for the debtor's family.	Supported deference to trial court's factual findings.
Los Angeles Finance Co. v. Flores, 110 Cal.App.2d Supp. 850	Same as Sanker, emphasizing trial court discretion in exemption determinations.	Reinforced the discretionary nature of necessity determinations.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by noting the procedural posture, including the absence of a respondent's brief, which allowed it to accept the appellant's facts as true but did not relieve the appellant of proving error. The defendant-appellant claimed all wages were necessary for family support under section 690.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which exempts wages if necessary for the debtor’s family, unless the debts are for common necessaries or personal services of an employee.

The court explained the policy behind the exemption statute: ensuring debtors retain enough income to maintain a basic standard of living to remain productive members of society, with the statute construed liberally. However, the burden to prove exemption lies with the debtor, and the trial court’s determination of necessity is entitled to wide discretion because "necessity" is inherently fact-specific and variable.

Reviewing the record, the court found the appellant’s claimed expenses exceeded income, but included ambiguous items such as "incidentals" and "installment contracts" without sufficient explanation of their necessity. Furthermore, the appellant’s wife earned additional income, which, if considered, showed the family’s income exceeded expenses. Without a transcript, the court relied on affidavits and the appellant’s brief. It held that the trial court did not abuse discretion in finding $38 of wages subject to execution, as the appellant failed to prove all wages were necessary for the family’s use.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is affirmed.

The trial court's order denying the full exemption of the appellant’s wages and permitting execution on $38 of monthly wages stands. The appellant failed to meet the burden of proof showing all wages were necessary for his family’s support. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reinforces the principle that exemption claims require sufficient factual proof and that trial courts have broad discretion in such determinations.

Show full summary ...

PERFECTION PAINT PRODUCTS (a Corporation), Respondent, v. GIRTHON JOHNSON, Appellant.

PETERS, P.J.

Plaintiff has a final judgment against defendant for over $3,800. Plaintiff levied execution on defendant's wages. Defendant claimed that such wages were entirely exempt because all of his earnings were necessary for the support of his family, supporting such claim by the required affidavit. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition. A hearing was had. No transcript of that hearing has been filed. The trial court entered a minute order to the effect "that Thirty-eight Dollars ($38.00) of the monthly wages is subject to execution." Defendant appeals.

[1] Plaintiff has failed to file a brief in support of the order. In such event, under rule 17(b) of the Rules on Appeal "the court may accept as true the statement of facts in the appellant's opening brief." The court may assume that the point urged on appeal is meritorious. ( Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147 [ 151 P.2d 887]; Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136 [ 128 P.2d 691].) But this does not mean that the case will automatically be reversed. The burden to show error is on appellant. Therefore, the court must examine appellant's brief to see if the points raised are meritorious, and, if found not to be meritorious, should affirm. (See generally 4 Cal.Jur.2d § 496, p. 334.)

In his affidavit claiming the exemption defendant lists his income as $348 per month and his "necessary monthly expenses" as $375.50. Included in the list are "Installment Contracts — $71.00" and "Incidentals — $25.00." Appellant states in his brief that he and his wife testified at the hearing as the only witnesses; that appellant testified that he is regularly employed by Crown Paint Company and receives from them $348 monthly as wages; that his wife works intermittently as a domestic, averaging about $16 a week from this source.

Appellant claims that on such a record, as a matter of law, he is entitled to an exemption of all of his wages under section 690.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that one-half of the earnings of a wage earner for a fixed period are exempt from execution without filing a claim and that "All of such earnings, if necessary for the use of the debtor's family, residing in this State, and supported in whole or in part by such debtor" are exempt, upon filing a claim therefor unless the debts are incurred "for the common necessaries of life" or for personal services of an employee of the debtor. Of course, whether such earnings are "necessary for the use of the debtor's family" presents a question of fact.

[2] The basic theory of such exemption is that a debtor and his family, regardless of the debtor's improvidence, will retain enough money to maintain a basic standard of living in order that the debtor may have a fair chance to remain a productive member of the community. ( Bailey v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. 548 [ 11 P.2d 865]; Avilla v. Avilla, 81 Cal.App.2d 210 [ 183 P.2d 668].) [3] The statute should be liberally construed in order to effectuate this purpose. ( Holmes v. Marshall, 145 Cal. 777 [ 79 P. 534, 104 Am.St.Rep. 86, 2 Ann.Cas. 88, 69 L.R.A. 67]; Van Lue v. Wahrlich-Cornett Co., 12 Cal.App. 749 [ 108 P. 717].) [4] But the burden of proof is upon the judgment debtor to establish his right to such an exemption. ( Carter v. Carter, 55 Cal.App.2d 13 [ 130 P.2d 186]; Bertozzi v. Swisher, 27 Cal.App.2d 739 [ 81 P.2d 1016]; Murphy v. Harris, 77 Cal. 194 [ 19 P. 377].) [5] In determining whether the debtor has met this burden of proof the trial court is necessarily vested with wide discretion. This is so because the determination of what is "necessary for the use of the debtor's family" is not subject to precise definition, and differs with each debtor. Thus, the determination must be largely left to the discretion of the trial court. ( Sanker v. Humborg, 48 Cal.App.2d 205 [ 119 P.2d 433]; see also Los Angeles Finance Co. v. Flores, 110 Cal.App.2d Supp. 850 [243 P.2d 139].) [6] The trial court has impliedly found that the debtor has not met the required burden, and that $38 a month of his income is subject to execution, i.e., not "necessary" for him or for his family. In attacking this finding we are not supplied with a reporter's transcript. We are furnished with the two affidavits, and appellant's opening brief, which purports to summarize the evidence produced at the hearing. According to the affidavit and summary, appellant's obligations exceed his income by $27.50. But one such obligation is listed as "Incidentals" for which $25 is allocated. This does not prove, as a matter of law, that such "incidentals" were reasonably necessary for the debtor or his family. Another ambiguous and unexplained item is "Installment Contracts — $71.00." What the installments were for and whether the articles involved were necessary for the family does not appear. Appellant also concedes that his wife earns over $64 per month as a domestic. If this figure be included, the family balance sheet shows an excess of income over expenses.

Under these circumstances it cannot be held that, as a matter of law, the trial court abused its discretion in finding that $38 a month of the debtor's income was subject to execution. The appellant has failed to meet the burden of establishing that all of his wages, including the $38, were "necessary" for the use of his family.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Bray, J., and St. Clair, J. pro tem., concurred.

Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.