Claim of Exemption
June 3, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 4 24-CLJ-00932 BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. VS. EMILNA DELA CRUZ
BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. ALEXANDER BALZER CARR EMILNA DELA CRUZ
Claim of Exemption
TENTATIVE RULING:
The claim of exemption filed by judgment debtor Emilna de la Cruz is DENIED in part.
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.) De La Cruz claims her assets are exempt based on Code of Civil Procedure, sections 703.140, subdivision (b) and 704.115. Code of Civil Procedure, section 703.140 relates to claims of exemption in cases filed under Title 11 of the United States Code. Dela Cruz has not asserted she has filed a petition in bankruptcy. Section 704.115 refers to private retirement plans.
Subdivision (b) provides that “[a]ll amounts held, controlled, or in process of distribution by a retirement plan, for the payment of benefits as an annuity, pension, retirement allowance, disability payment, or death benefit from a retirement plan are exempt.” Dela Cruz states that her income is drawn from a New York Life annuity and a “Fidelity retirement plan.” She does not supply information about the type of plan, nor the source of funds used to purchase the annuity. Moreover, although she has provided statements showing a lump sum deposit from Fidelity in February 2026, and what appears to be a monthly payment from New York Life, and provided a 2025 1099-R from New York Like, DeLa Cruz has not stated the amount currently held at either entity.
Further, Bank of America notes that Dela Cruz has just under $5,000 on deposit at Wells Fargo, and in two US Bank accounts.
Bank of America opposes Dela Cruz’s claim of exemption in its entirety and seeks to collect the full amount of the $19,137.83 judgment.
Bank of America objects that Dela Cruz’s Financial Statement does not include the monthly contribution by her spouse, Luisito Dela Cruz. The Dela Cruz’s monthly expenses are approximately triple their joint income. Bank of America contends that this indicates she and her spouse receive income from an unidentified source. Regardless of whether that is correct, Dela Cruz lists $3,656/month in installment payments to non-judgment creditors, which funds are nonexempt. Dela Cruz also lists a monthly allocation of $1,916.00 for “Freedom Debt Relief, a debt negotiator,” which is also nonexempt. Bank of America notes that it is a “high priority creditor” towards which funds could be allocated for payment. It appears that Dela Cruz could use some of these funds to make payments to Bank of America.
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?”
June 3, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ Further, Bank of America questions as excessive Dela Cruz’s monthly expenses of $1,200/month for food and supplies; $1,550 for utilities and telephone; $775 for transportation; and $320 for entertainment. The court agrees that these amounts appear high for two people.
Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS Emilna Dela Cruz to pay Bank of America $200 per month.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, judgment creditor’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.