Marriage of Quintana CA3

Filed 6/30/22 Marriage of Quintana CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

In re the Marriage of JOAN and RAYMOND C092708 QUINTANA.

JOAN QUINTANA, (Super. Ct. No. PFL20140631)

Appellant,

v.

RAYMOND QUINTANA,

Respondent.

Joan Quintana, appearing in propria persona, appeals from the trial court’s order granting Ray Quintana’s motion to quash a wage garnishment order. As we explain, under the circumstances presented here, we are required to affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND The parties were married in December 1991. A judgment dissolving their marriage was entered in September 2016. Included in that judgment was a marital settlement agreement, in which respondent agreed to “take assignment of his son’s

1

Student Loan” debt in the approximate amount of $30,000. The parties agreed to a mutual waiver of spousal support, and respondent agreed to pay to appellant an “equalizing payment” totaling $1,850. In March 2019, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled that respondent was “solely responsible for the student loans in the amount of $34,604.19 . . . [and] for expenses incurred to repair damage and for maintenance of the home in the amount of $2,293.05.” The court also ruled that appellant was “entitled to reimbursement for payment of the mortgage arrears in the amount of $3,441.00 and $797.05 for arrears on the second mortgage.” The court awarded appellant attorney’s fees totaling $5,000. The court ordered respondent pay to appellant $150 each month “for repayment of the student loans,” and $150 each month toward her attorney fees. The payments were to begin on April 1, 2019. On August 5, 2019, the trial court issued an order to show cause compelling respondent to demonstrate why he should not be held in contempt for willfully disobeying the court’s March 2019 order. Sometime after that, an order garnishing respondent’s social security disability income (SSDI) was issued. Respondent moved for an exemption and on May 28, 2020, the trial court issued a tentative ruling indicating respondent’s SSDI was “exempt from attachment” without an order for support. On August 20, 2020, the court denied appellant’s “request to treat the money due to [her] from respondent per the judgment, as support,” and granted respondent’s motion to quash the order garnishing his SSDI.