Direct Capital Corporation v. Brooks CA3

Filed 2/27/23 Direct Capital Corporation v. Brooks CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

DIRECT CAPITAL CORPORATION, C095817

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CV- UBC-2014-0006707) v.

MARY BROOKS,

Defendant;

GRANT BROOKS,

Appellant.

Code of Civil Procedure1 section 685.040 permits a trial court to award reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment to the judgment creditor. In this appeal, Grant Brooks challenges the trial court’s section 685.040 award of attorney fees to

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

respondent Direct Capital Corporation (DCC) for its pursuit of a wage garnishment order against Grant arising out of a debt incurred by Mary Brooks, his then wife.2 In Grant’s first appeal, a panel of this court ruled Grant was liable for the debt and affirmed the trial court’s original garnishment order. (Direct Capital Corp. v. Brooks (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1168, 1170.) In Grant’s second appeal, a different panel of this court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Grant’s motion to vacate/set aside the garnishment order. (Direct Capital Corp. v. Brooks (Feb. 2, 2021, C089980) [nonpub. opn.] (Direct Capital).) In this appeal, Grant argues the trial court misapplied case law when it made the award of attorney fees pursuant to section 685.040. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND The following comes largely from our prior opinion in Direct Capital, of which we take judicial notice on our own motion. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) DCC leased computer equipment to Mary, but after she failed to pay for the equipment DCC sued Mary and obtained a 2015 judgment for nearly $40,000 (which included over $6,000 in attorney fees). DCC later moved to garnish Grant’s wages, alleging that when the debt was incurred, the marriage was intact, and the judgment was a community obligation. The trial court agreed and issued a garnishment order. (Direct Capital, supra, C089980.) Grant appealed and in our 2017 opinion we explained that because it was undisputed the debt in this case was incurred while Grant and Mary were married and before they separated, Grant was liable for the debt in light of the trial court’s findings (supported by the record) the debt was incurred for “ ‘necessaries of life.’ ” We affirmed