On 12/15/2017 MIMI MARY GREEN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RICHARD TENHOEVE, . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
NANCY L. NEWMAN
GREEN MIMI MARY
J. ROTHSTEIN & CO. OF BEVERLY HILLS
ROTHSTEIN JANET J.
ZEUTZIUS WILLIAM J.
ZEUTZIUS WILLIAM JOSEPH JR
1/19/2018: Other -
3/23/2018: Case Management Statement
3/23/2018: Case Management Statement
4/16/2018: Minute Order
11/16/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
2/20/2019: Minute Order
4/18/2019: Request for Dismissal
5/21/2019: Minute Order
at 09:00 AM in Department P; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff Mimi Mary Green's Motion Pursuant to Sec...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Judgment (- Stipulated Judgment - Before Trial - 05/31/2019 entered for Plaintiff GREEN, MIMI MARY against Defendant ROTHSTEIN, JANET J.; Defendant TENHOEVE, RICHARD.); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Judgment (Proposed Judgment); Filed by MIMI MARY GREEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department P; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal; Filed by MIMI MARY GREEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Motion to Enforce Settlement; Filed by MIMI MARY GREEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (Notice of Continuance of Hearing); Filed by MIMI MARY GREEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (of Richard L TenHoeve)Read MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous-Other (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ); Filed by DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Declaration; Filed by J. ROTHSTEIN & CO. OF BEVERLY HILLS (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (PRO SE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ); Filed by DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (RE INCOME AND ASSETS EXEMPT FROM GARNISHMENT ); Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by MIMI MARY GREEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC128536 Hearing Date: December 04, 2019 Dept: P
Mimi Mary Green v. Richard Tenhoeve et al. Case No. SC128536
Judgment Creditor’s Opposition to Claims of Exemption
Hearing Date: December 4, 2019
Judgment creditor Mimi Mary Green has judgments for $7,000.00 and $28,584.95 against judgment debtors Janet J. Rothstein and Richard TenHoeve, respectively. Pursuant to a writ of execution, creditor has levied on the debtors’ bank accounts. Both debtors filed claims of exemption, which the creditor opposes.
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §704.070 exempts from enforcement seventy-five percent of paid earnings in a judgment debtor’s deposit account, if the funds were paid to the debtor thirty days or fewer before the date of the levy. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §704.080 automatically exempts social security benefits and other public benefit payments in a deposit account, even if judgment debtor does not file a claim of exemption, from levy up to a defined amount. A claim of exemption is required to exempt amounts above the statutory minimums.
Judgment debtor Rothstein seeks to exempt $3,600.00, arguing these funds represent seventy five percent of earnings paid within thirty days of the levy. See Rothstein Claim of Exemption pg. 1. Debtor TenHoeve seeks to exempt “Direct Deposit Social Security Benefits” in an unspecified amount. TenHoeve Claim of Exemption at pg. 1.
Judgment creditor opposes both claims. The opposition contains no substantive argument or authority, stating: “[t]he accounts levied upon were in the name of the judgment debtor. No third party claims have been made against the funds, nor do any exemptions apply. The debtor did not follow through with the agreement to make monthly payments on this judgment obligation and as such, bank levies were served. The judgment needs to be paid.” Notices of opposition at pg. 1.
While judgment creditor has a right to execute the levies, she provides no evidence or authority to refute debtors’ claims that some of the money in the accounts is exempt under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§704.070 and 704.090. The claims of exemption are GRANTED. The levies may proceed on all funds above $3,600.00 in debtor Rothstein’s account. Since the TenHoeve claim of exemption does not identify a specific exempt sum, the court applies the statutory minimum of $2,425.00. All sums above that amount in TenHoeve’s account may be levied upon.