Lopp v. Lopp
Before: Balthis
BALTHIS, J.
Plaintiff obtained a writ of execution in the above action and the marshal levied upon certain property belonging to the defendant, to wit, a 1958 Ford pickup truck.
Defendant made and filed an affidavit claiming exemption which includes the following statement: “That affiant is in the business of mounting and dismounting retread tires for various used car lots and said truck is a tool or implement necessary to carry on his trade and is thereby exempt under Code of Civil Procedure section 690.4.”
Upon a motion made by plaintiff to determine this claim of exemption, the court sustained defendant’s claim and plaintiff appeals from such order. Respondent (appearing
[476]
in propria persona) did not file a brief and the appeal is considered upon the clerk’s transcript and appellant’s brief.
Defendant claimed exemption under section 690.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the material portion of which provides exemption for “The tools or implements of a mechanic or artisan, necessary to carry on his trade; . . . ” Defendant also claimed exemption under section 690.24 (relating to motor vehicles) of the same code but it is unnecessary to pass upon the question of exemption under this section in view of our decision that exemption does lie under section 690.4.
In determining the question whether the pickup truck in this case is a tool or implement of a mechanic or artisan necessary to carry on his trade, consideration of the case of
Twining
v.
Taylor,
170 Cal.App.2d Supp. 842 [339 P.2d 646], is helpful. In that ease the court held a judgment debtor engaged in the occupation of spreading gypsum and fertilizer in fields of farmers to be a “mechanic or artisan” and entitled to claim exemption with respect to a tractor with a bucket dozer attachment. The court points out the requirements for exemption under this section (p. 844) : “By the terms of the statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 690.4) the party seeking the exemption here involved must meet three requirements. (1) He must be a ‘mechanic or artisan.’ (2) The equipment involved must be a tool or implement. (3) The equipment must be ‘necessary to carry on his trade.’ ”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)