Locke Management Association vs. Martha Esch

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

This matter involves real property owned by Judgment Debtor/Defendant Martha Esch (“Defendant”) and located 13959 Main Street, Walnut Grove, CA 95690, APN: 146-0400-021 (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property is currently held by the Sheriff’s Office following service of a levy on August 21, 2025. Defendant claims the Subject Property is exempt and has filed a claim of exemption.

This matter was originally set for hearing on April 22, 2026. On April 21, 2026, the Court issued a tentative ruling denying the claim of exemption. After the matter was argued and submitted, the Court continued it to today’s date so that it could be heard in conjunction with Defendant’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2011-00103789-CU-OR-GDS: Locke Management Association vs. Martha Esch 06/03/2026 Hearing on Claim of Exemption/Third-Party Claim in Department 8C

motion to vacate all judgments. Since the Court has denied Defendant’s motion to vacate all judgments, the claim of exemption is not moot, and the Court will reach the merits. To the extent Defendant argued in relation to the claim of exemption that the judgments were void or invalid, those arguments are rejected.

Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure sections 704.030, 704.740, 704.720, 704.730, and 704.060. Section 704.030 provides that materials for repair or improvement of a residence are exempt from enforcement of money judgments. There is no showing that this statute applies, since the Subject Property is real property, not materials for repair or improvement of a residence. Sections 704.720, 704.730, 704.740, and 704.060 govern the homestead exemption. Defendant has not submitted any evidence showing that the Subject Property is a homestead.

Further, with its opposition, Judgment Creditor/Plaintiff Locke Management Association (“Plaintiff”) submits Defendant’s bankruptcy filings in which she represented that she resides at 14075 Winnie Street, Walnut Grove, CA 95690, and that the Subject Property is used for a business operating a bed and breakfast and ice cream parlor known as Locke B&B and Lockport Grill & Fountain. Thus, the record before the Court does not support a finding that the Subject Property is a homestead and therefore exempt from execution.

Defendant also cites Code of Civil Procedure sections 695.060 and 699.720(a)(1). Section 695.060 provides that “a license issued by a public entity to engage in any business, profession, or activity is not subject to enforcement of a money judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 695.060.) Section 699.720(a)(1) provides that an alcoholic beverage license is not subject to execution. Neither of these statutes is applicable, since the Subject Property is real property.

Defendant asserts in her claim of exemption that the Subject Property is exempt because of improper or ineffective service of the notice of levy. No legal authority or factual argument is presented with the claim of exemption to support this assertion. Nor is this assertion developed further in the reply. Moreover, whether the notice of levy was properly served is not relevant to the question of whether the Subject Property is exempt. Defendant has not filed a motion to quash or recall the writ of execution or moved for a stay of execution. Additionally, “failure to post, serve, or mail the copy of the writ and the notice does not affect the execution lien created by the levy.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 699.550.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s claim of exemption is DENIED.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 703.580(e), the Clerk shall promptly transmit a certified copy of this order to the levying officer. Subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 703.610, as well as the rules governing the sale of real property found at Code of Civil Procedure section 701.510 et seq., the levying officer shall apply the Subject Property to the satisfaction of the money judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 703.580(e).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2011-00103789-CU-OR-GDS: Locke Management Association vs. Martha Esch 06/03/2026 Hearing on Claim of Exemption/Third-Party Claim in Department 8C