Claim of Exemption
LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:01 19CV341095 Sandy Park Hearing on Judgment-Debtor 1 v. Sandy Park’s Claim of Exemption Nancy Kim, et al. As of April 20, 2026, Judgment-Debtor Sandy Park (“Park”) owed $13,473.37 on a first Judgment to Judgment-Creditor Nancy Kim (“Kim”) and owed $6,541.12 on a second Judgment to Judgment-Creditor Kim. Decl. of Nancy Kim at ¶ 4 & Exhibits C & D thereto (filed: April 20, 2026 in Case No. 19CV341095).
Invoking Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b), Park now seeks a complete exemption from wage garnishment to satisfy the amounts she owes on these Judgments. But as Kim points out in her Opposition to Park’s Claim of Exemption, Section 473(b) is not an exemption statute. Opp. at ¶ 6 (filed: April 22, 2026). And here, the property that that Park claims as exempt is not exempt under any statute relied on in Park’s Claim of Exemption. Id. at ¶ 5(a).
Moreover, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 703.530, Park as the Judgment Debtor has the burden to establish that the levied funds are exempt, e.g., by demonstrating that the funds at issue are reasonably necessary for her support. But Park has failed to carry that burden.
Accordingly, Judgment Debtor Sandy Park’s Claim of Exemption is DENIED.
Judgment Creditor Nancy Kim is to prepare and file the formal order after this hearing.
2
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”