Lobel Financial Corp., a California Corporation VS Harris

WG07328628: Lobel Financial Corp., a California Corporation VS Harris 06/11/2026 Hearing on Claim of Exemption/Third-Party Claim CRS# 860728548993 in Department 17

Tentative Ruling - 06/09/2026 Chad A. Stegeman

The Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption or in lieu of Third-Party Claim filed by Lobel Financial Corp., a California Corporation on 05/21/2026 is Denied.

The Claim of Exemption of Defendant Damien L. Harris (“Defendant”) is DENIED. BACKGROUND This collections case was initiated in 2007 by Plaintiff Lobel Financial Corp. (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant. On February 14, 2008, the Court entered a default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $5,816.09 for failing to appear and answer the Complaint, which was renewed in 2017. (ROA.) This included the principal amount of $4,022.29 and $230.00 in costs. (2/14/2008 Judgment.)

A writ of execution was issued on or about February 19, 2021 for a total amount of $15,346.32. (2/19/2021 Writ of Execution.) The Alameda County Sheriff's File No. is 21-1118. (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION Defendant submitted a claim of exemption and accompanying Financial Statement on May 4, 2026 but failed to attach evidence in support thereof. (Notice of Opposition.) Defendant represents that his monthly gross income is $4,600.42, his net income is $3,142.86, and that his monthly expenses are $3,974.22. (Financial Statement, §§ 2a, e; 4n.) However, Plaintiff includes an employer return which reflects that his gross income is $5,965.90 based on biweekly payments of $2,982.95. (Oppo., Ex. A.)

The exemption claimant has the burden of proof. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 703.580(b).) “The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. If not satisfied, the court shall order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 703.580(c).)

Here, Defendant has failed to provide evidence supporting the claim of exemption. There are no bank records or other documents submitted to substantiate his assertions or to explain the discrepancy in the amount attributed to his income. The Court notes that this is problematic given that Defendant submitted this Claim under penalty of perjury. Thus, Defendant has not met his burden to prove his claim that all his earnings are necessary to support himself and his family. The Court disallows the Claim of Exemption.