MOTION FOR WAGE GARNISHMENT ORDER AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S SPOUSE
(CCP § 706.120 et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor Infinity Insurance Company’s Motion for Wage Garnishment Order Against Judgment Debtor’s Spouse is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
On March 26, 2015, a default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Creditor Infinity Insurance Company (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendant Antonio Ruvalcaba (“Judgment Debtor”) in the amount of $8,932.62. Judgment Creditor has successfully collected $6,506.54 in wage garnishment from Judgment Creditor, but $3,174.86, which includes post-judgment interests, remains unsatisfied.
Judgment Creditor, on August 12, 2019, filed the this Motion for Wage Garnishment Order (the “Motion”) seeking an order to garnish Judgment Debtor’s spouse’s wages under CCP § 706.109. Judgment Creditor contended Gema Devora is Judgment Debtor’s spouse.
On September 10, 2019, the court continued this motion based on the followi
Type
BREACH OF CONTRACT (Limited Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION FOR WAGE GARNISHMENT ORDER AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S SPOUSE
(CCP § 706.120 et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor Infinity Insurance Company’s Motion for Wage Garnishment Order Against Judgment Debtor’s Spouse is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
On March 26, 2015, a default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Creditor Infinity Insurance Company (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendant Antonio Ruvalcaba (“Judgment Debtor”) in the amount of $8,932.62. Judgment Creditor has successfully collected $6,506.54 in wage garnishment from Judgment Creditor, but $3,174.86, which includes post-judgment interests, remains unsatisfied.
Judgment Creditor, on August 12, 2019, filed the this Motion for Wage Garnishment Order (the “Motion”) seeking an order to garnish Judgment Debtor’s spouse’s wages under CCP § 706.109. Judgment Creditor contended Gema Devora is Judgment Debtor’s spouse.
On September 10, 2019, the court continued this motion based on the followi