Judgement

[Zigner]

What they can do though is try and attach your portion of any community property to pay off the debt.

The beauty of community property (generally speaking) is that they BOTH own it fully. In other words, there is no "portion" to attach - it's all available.

 

[stressedincali]

Community property

Just went back to look at mortgage papers because I remembered having to sign off on something. I signed an interspousal transfer grant deed saying that it's his sole and separate property. Would this help me from them not being able to put a lien on his house? Thank you!

 

[Proserpina]

The beauty of community property (generally speaking) is that they BOTH own it fully. In other words, there is no "portion" to attach - it's all available.

Oh for Pete's sake. I went right to WA law where a debt incurred before the marriage stays with the debtor and only the debtor's income/assets counts, even though the state is a community property state. For some obscure reason, I had it in my head that we were talking about WA and not CA. WA is the odd child out as far as the community property rules go. Cali is "normal".

Sorry, folks.

 

[stressedincali]

Even if I signed the interspousal transfer grant deed saying that the property is his sole and separate party on mortgage loan docs?

 

[latigo]

Thank you... We don't really have anything together. We have separate bank accounts and no cars with both our names. Absolutely nothing joint. Thank goodness, I think!

I don't wish to be the bearer of bad news, but you are much mistake in assuming that just because you and your husband have taken measures to ostensibly identify and distinguish assets acquired during marriage as either "his" or "hers" that they are not "jointly owned" and that your judgment creditor can only levy execution on those assets standing in your sole name.

California is a community property state. The consequences being that all property real or personal acquired by either of you during the marriage that is not classified as separate property is community property with each spouse owning an equal undivided share. (Cal Family Code Section 760)

Also most likely to your further chagrin by California law "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt". (Cal. Family Code Section 910)

SO, please don't be disillusioned into believing that those assets that are listed solely in your husband's name (bank accounts, cars, wages due and owing, etc.) are exempt from levy of execution by your judgment creditor.

The only property in your husband's name that is not liable for that judgment is that which he owns separately. And separate property is defined as follows:

"(1) All property owned by the person before marriage.
(2) All property acquired by the person after marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent.
(3) The rents, issues, and profits of the property described in this section". (Cal. Family Code Section 770)

Earlier in this thread you were ill advised that only your individual share of a community asset could be taken by your creditor. The implication being that if your creditor were to say garnish you husband's bank account or earnings due and payable that only one half could be seized in satisfaction of the judgment.

That advice runs counter to the governing statute (910) which again reads" " . . . the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage. . . " It does not read that only the interest of the individual debtor in the community estate is liable!

 

[Proserpina]

I don't wish to be the bearer of bad news, but you are much mistake in assuming that just because you and your husband have taken measures to ostensibly identify and distinguish assets acquired during marriage as either "his" or "hers" that they are not "jointly owned" and that your judgment creditor can only levy execution on those assets standing in your sole name.

California is a community property state. The consequences being that all property real or personal acquired by either of you during the marriage that is not classified as separate property is community property with each spouse owning an equal undivided share. (Cal Family Code Section 760)

Also most likely to your further chagrin by California law "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt". (Cal. Family Code Section 910)

SO, please don't be disillusioned into believing that those assets that are listed solely in your husband's name (bank accounts, cars, wages due and owing, etc.) are exempt from levy of execution by your judgment creditor.

The only property in your husband's name that is not liable for that judgment is that which he owns separately. And separate property is defined as follows:

"(1) All property owned by the person before marriage.
(2) All property acquired by the person after marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent.
(3) The rents, issues, and profits of the property described in this section". (Cal. Family Code Section 770)

Earlier in this thread you were ill advised that only your individual share of a community asset could be taken by your creditor. The implication being that if your creditor were to say garnish you husband's bank account or earnings due and payable that only one half could be seized in satisfaction of the judgment.

That advice runs counter to the governing statute (910) which again reads" " . . . the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage. . . " It does not read that only the interest of the individual debtor in the community estate is liable!

Why yes, I was indeed incorrect.

However, I did apologize with grace. You are familiar with that concept, yes? Good going.

 

[stressedincali]

So with everything being community property then... Would it be in my best interest then, to go forward with trying to reach a settlement with them before they actually move forward with either garnishing, levying or putting a lien?

Going back to my original first post... They listed a bank account as the garnishee, that I am almost done with making my car payment and a savings that I have not ever used.
Would they have to file some type of new paperwork with the courts if they were to go after any other account I have, my husbands, or his house? Thank you again everyone for your help.

 

[latigo]

So with everything being community property then... Would it be in my best interest then, to go forward with trying to reach a settlement with them before they actually move forward with either garnishing, levying or putting a lien?

Going back to my original first post... They listed a bank account as the garnishee, that I am almost done with making my car payment and a savings that I have not ever used.

Would they have to file some type of new paperwork with the courts if they were to go after any other account I have, my husbands, or his house? Thank you again everyone for your help.

First of all it seems that your husband's home is solely and separately owned, that is, not community property, and thus not liable for your debt incurred prior to the marriage. And even if a community interest in the home has been created, it is unlikely that the creditor would trouble with it.

Secondly, if the creditor were to discover other accounts/assets that are liable (such as you have mentioned), it wouldn't be necessary that the creditor "file any new paperwork with court" in order to subject them to a levy. Unless that is, the asset is located in another county.

One issue that always bears examination in cases of this nature where considerable time has elapsed is the date of the issuance of the creditor's judgment and whether or not it is still operative. They are only good (enforceable) for an initial period of ten years and renewable for an additional 10 year period, but only if the application for renewal is timely. (See: Renewal of Judgments CA CCP 683.110 - 683.220)

Its problematical, but sometimes things do slip by and mistakes are made. Particularly by sleazy bill collectors that purchase these moth ridden judgments by the truck load.

 

[stressedincali]

Yes, they recently renewed the judgment right before the 10 year mark. So now it will be another 10 years. What you are saying makes me a little hopeful, but everyone seems to be saying different.