DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
19CV341095·santaclara·Civil·Wage Garnishment Claim
DENIED

Sandy Park v. Nancy Kim, et al.

Claim of Exemption

Hearing date
May 15, 2026
Department
16
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Other

Monetary amounts referenced

$13,473.37$6,541.12

Parties

PlaintiffSandy Park
DefendantNancy Kim

Ruling

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.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share