DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
19CV341095·santaclara·Civil·Debt Collection
Hearing in about 4 hoursDENIED

Sandy Park v. Nancy Kim, et al.

Judgment-Debtor Sandy Park’s New Claim of Exemption

Hearing date
Aug 21, 2026
Department
16
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSandy Park
DefendantNancy Kim

Ruling

9:01 19CV341095 Sandy Park Hearing on Judgment-Debtor Sandy 1 v. Park’s New Claim of Exemption Nancy Kim, et al. On April 9, 2026, Judgment-Debtor Sandy Park (“Park”) filed a Claim of Exemption concerning levied rental income and cited C.C.P. § 473(b) as the basis for her exemption claim.

After a hearing on May 15, 2026 on this issue, the Court DENIED Park’s exemption claim for several reasons: (1) Section 473(b) is not an exemption statute, (2) Park failed to identify any applicable statutory basis exempting the levied funds from enforcement, and (3) Park failed to carry her burden to establish that the levied funds are exempt. Order at 2:5-12 (filed: June 2, 2026).

Next, on July 16, 2026, Parked filed a new Claim of Exemption objecting to the levied rental income, now citing C.C.P. §§ 473(b), 687.040, and 703.610 (the “New Claim of Exemption”).

This Court has already ruled that Section 473(b) is not an exemption statute. The same holds true for Sections 687.040 and 703.610. Section 687.040 is about levying officer liability and Section 703.610 concerns the levying officer’s handling of property after a claim of exemption is made. None of these statutes exempts rental income from enforcement.

And Park’s arguments about disputed accounting and allegations of fraud do not make the levied rent exempt.

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 New Claim of Exemption is DENIED.

Judgment Creditor Nancy Kim is to prepare and file the formal order after this hearing.

SO ORDERED. 9:01 2

9:01 3 9:01 4 9:01 5

9:01 6

9:00 25CV477825 American Express National Order on Defendant Christopher 1 Bank Juniel’s Motion to Quash Service of v. Summons Christophe Juniel a.k.a. Christopher Juniel, et al. See Line 1 below for complete tentative ruling.

After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order & Judgment.

9:00 22CV402044 Park Capital Management, LLC Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for 2 v. Summary Judgment Satya Chillara, et al. See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling.

After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.

4

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share