Hearing on Claim of Exemption
July 13, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 2 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Case Title / Nature of Case
02:00 PM 17-CLJ-02052 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC VS. JONATHAN BOLANOS LINE 1
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC MICHAEL S. HUNT JONATHAN BOLANOS
PLAINTIFF: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCATES, LCC’S HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
TENTATIVE RULING:
On June 1, 2026, plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates (“Portfolio”), the judgment creditor herein, filed an opposition to defendant and judgment debtor Jonathan Bolanos (“Bolanos”)’s claim of exemption. (See Opposition to Claim of Exemption).
California Code of Civil Procedure, section 706.050 provides, in pertinent part, that garnishment of the wages of an employee is limited to the lesser of 20 percent of the disposable earnings of an individual judgment debtor for any workweek subject to levy (except for certain high earners). The term “disposable earnings” is defined as “the portion of an individual’s earnings that remains after deducting all amounts required to be withheld by law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 706.011, subd. (a).)
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.) Bolanos has submitted a financial statement. Portfolio has a generalized objection but does not identify any particular deduction as “not required by law” or object to any specific expense as excessive. It does, however, indicate that it would accept $200 per pay period.
It is of note that Bolanos’ savings are below the current automatic exemption for funds held in a bank account, which is $2,244. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.220
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?”
Bolanos’ financial statement is inconsistent with his paystubs. Bolanos indicates his net monthly income is $1500.28 and he claims monthly expenses of $2,310. While his expenses are generally reasonable (Code Civ. Proc., § 706.051), his net monthly income appears to be higher than claimed. Looking just at the two paystubs provided, his net monthly income appears to be approximately $2,356. But that figure appears to underrepresent his monthly income because it excludes the more than $400 per pay period that it appears was garnished for this case, which would make it appear that Bolanos could pay at least $846 per month towards his debt.
Accordingly, absent additional information provided at the hearing and based on the information provided, it appears that Bolanos could pay the $200.00 per pay period towards the outstanding debt sought by Portfolio.
July 13, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 3 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS creditor’s Opposition to defendant/judgment debtor’s claim of exemption. The Court ORDERS Bolanos’ wages to be garnished in the amount of $200.00 per pay period. The Court also ORDERS that the Sheriff’s Office may release the $890.95 already garnished to the creditor.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.