Claim of Exemption
May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 1 21-CLJ-02059 BANK OF AMERICA N.A. VS. JAMES H TAKENOUCHI
BANK OF AMERICA N.A. ANTHONY DIPIERO JAMES H TAKENOUCHI PRO SE
Claim of Exemption
TENTATIVE RULING:
The claim of exemption filed by judgment debtor James H. Takenouchi is DENIED.
The burden of proof is on the judgment debtor to demonstrate that the property to be levied on is exempt in whole or in part. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580.)
Judgment debtor James H. Takenouchi contends that the “account(s) that was/were levied should be exempt from execution because the entire source of the funds contained in the account(s) were paid to me as a beneficiary and primary family caregiver from the US. Department of Veteran’s affairs.” He further contends that “[t]hese funds are set aside for medical care for my father.” Takenouchi contends that the funds at his accounts at U.S. Bank are exempt under Code of Civil Procedure, section 703.140 subsection (b)(5) (relating to cases filed under Title 11 of the United States Code), and Title 38 United States Code, Section 5301 (veterans’ benefits are not assignable and are exempt from creditors’ claims).
Bank of America objects to Takenouchi’s claim of exemption in its entirety.
Takenouchi is apparently the primary family caregiver for his father, a veteran, and is entitled to receive a monthly stipend on his father’s behalf. He has supplied copies of bank records showing that he receives deposits from the U.S. Treasury, however, the VA’s award letter does not state the amount of the monthly benefits — only that they are “Level 1.” Moreover, he states that the payments are deposited into his checking account and then transferred to his savings account. He has provided checking account records which do not show that the same discrete amount of money deposited by the U.S.
Treasury is then transferred to a savings account. Rather, the account records show purchases, withdrawals, and transfers in varying amounts. To the extent there are transfers to a savings accounts, they are not in the same amount as the U.S. Treasury deposits. (See, e.g., Takenouchi Declaration, at pp. 9, 18, 20, 30 of 41.) The savings account statements show deposits and withdrawals without any indication of the purpose of the withdrawals or transfers back to the checking account.
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?”
Takenouchi asserts that Code of Civil Procedure, section 703.140, subsection (b)(5) provides the basis for a claim of exemption. It does not. Section 703.140 relates to bankruptcy cases. Takenouchi does not claim to have filed a bankruptcy petition, so this code section is inapplicable.
May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ As to 38 U.S.C. § 5301, Bank of America states that Takenouchi has failed to trace the exempt funds. The court agrees. Takenouchi has not shown that all of the incoming deposits are from the U.S. Treasury. Indeed, it appears that he has commingled his father’s VA benefits with his own incoming payments, and possibly his own expenditures. (See, e.g., Takenouchi Declaration, at p. 8 (mobile check deposit and U.S. Treasury deposits.) Accordingly, because Takenouchi has failed to carry his burden, his claim of exemption is denied.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, creditor’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.