Do I need to provide my husband's info? Debtor's exam California

[osssmosis]

Hi there I am posting this for a friend.
Name of State: CALIFORNIA
There is a small claims case against me that the other party secured a judgement. I do not have the money to pay them due to me not currently having a job. My husband is a city employee. During the debtor's exam last week the other party requested all of my husband's information including his social security number, place of employment, and other personal info because they want to try and take his wages. I didn't have the info at the time so they continued the matter until this afternoon. Do I need to legally provide this information? We have been married since March of 2002. What do I do in this situation. The debtor's exam is at 2pm and its almost 11 now.
Thanks in advance.

 

[racer72]

California is a community property state and your husband can be held liable for your debts. Is your husband listed as a defendant in the judgment? My state is also a community property state, the non debtor spouse would have to be included in the judgment before collection attempts can be made against his/her wages. I am not sure about California, someone should be along soon with that answer.

 

[Zigner]

You had a WEEK and you waited until 3 hours before the hearing to start asking these questions?

I don't know the full technicalities of it, but, personally, I would respond that this is a separate debt and that I cannot provide information for a 3rd party (who is not named in the judgment) without their consent.

EDIT: Of course, as Racer alluded to - I'm assuming that your husband is NOT named in the lawsuit/judgment.

 

[osssmosis]

no he is not named on the lawsuit or judgement. So what do I say when i go to court today and they request his info???

Thanks again

 

[You Are Guilty]

no he is not named on the lawsuit or judgement. So what do I say when i go to court today and they request his info???

Thanks again

Although I don't recommend it, if all else fails, you can try pulliing the Sammy Sosa Defense.

 

[Zigner]

You saw my post...you saw Racer's - the rest is up to you.

 

[Ladynred]

UNLESS this is a pre-marital debt, then you had better give them ALL the information they asked for or you will be held in contempt of court - which could land you in jail. If the debt was incurred DURING your marriage, you are BOTH liable for it under community property laws and, yes, they can garnish your husband's wages.

 

[Chien]

Too late for the OP now, but for anyone similarly situated in CA, LNR is right, even if the debt was pre-marital. Absent an express agreement to maintain as separate what would otherwise be community, half the husband's earnings are the property of the OP and can be subjected to the debt by noticed motion.
It's not likely that the OP went to jail if she refused just because overcrowding and paperwork will work in her favor but, at some point, the Court will lose patience, and she'll find herself headed that way. Then, she's likely to reconsider.

 

[Zigner]

UNLESS this is a pre-marital debt, then you had better give them ALL the information they asked for or you will be held in contempt of court - which could land you in jail. If the debt was incurred DURING your marriage, you are BOTH liable for it under community property laws and, yes, they can garnish your husband's wages.

Interesting - so you think that a third, disinterested party is somehow required to give ALL of their personal information in this case? Sure, OP can be required to provide information about the total income from her spouse, but beyond that...I doubt it.

 

[Chien]

Originally Posted By Zigner
Interesting - so you think that a third, disinterested party is somehow required to give ALL of their personal information in this case? Sure, OP can be required to provide information about the total income from her spouse, but beyond that...I doubt it.

Who is the "third, disinterested party"?
This is the judgment debtor who was being examined in a community property state.
Therefore, absent an express agreement to maintain separate ownership during the course of marriage, half of the spouse's earnings and/or the proceeds thereof are the property of the debtor.
The asset exam can rightfully encompass any and all information pertaining to assets or reasonably likely to lead to the identification of assets (and whether they are or are not exempt and, if exempt, why).
The only difference between this and racer72's example is that racer72 says that the non-judgment debtor spouse would have to have been named in the judgment in WA. (Not sure how the spouse could be named in the judgment and still be a non-debtor but perhaps that will be clarified.)
In CA, assets of the non-named spouse can be made subject to enforcement post-judgment.
(See Code of Civil Procedure sect 706.109:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=ccp&codebody=&hits=20
Therefore, the questions are appropriate and legitimate.

 

[Zigner]

Therefore, the questions are appropriate and legitimate.

I still don't agree that she would be required to release someone else's social security number...and you haven't cited anything to prove that it would be required.

 

[Chien]

You're right about not providing references or citations and, with due respect, I'm not going to linger long on it now. My intention was to shed some light and not to engender a debate on an issue that presumably is now moot for the OP.
I've been conducting and even ruling on the permissible scope of CA asset exams for so long that I created my own questionnaire years ago. For that reason, I can't send you via PM examples of the "variations on a standard questionnaire" approved for use by CA courts.
I can tell you that it closely tracks that used by the IRS, and you can review that here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f433a.pdf#search='Form 433A'

If asked for a reference, I would probably just cite you to the rights embodied in CA's Enforcement of Judgments Act, which is Code of Civil Procedure sect. 680.010 through and including sect. 724.280 - well more than 100 pages of reading found here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=ccp&codebody=&hits=20

I can tell you that at least two documents relevant to the OP's case, an Abstract of Judgment and an Earnings Withholding Order provide for the inclusion of a SSAN, particularly the Withholding Order, since it would be the spouses's earning that are at issue, and the option to include the SSAN to aid in identification implies, for me, the right to obtain it.

However, if that is not persuasive, consider sect. 708.030, which gives the judgment creditor the right to require the production of documents, including tax returns. I've always had to show my SSAN on my personal tax returns so, if it's not given voluntarily, the judgment creditor simply serves an inspection demand on the judgment debtor and gets it that way.

Beyond that, I trust that you'll never have to test your theory that, in CA, the information is absolutely protected and unaccessible, making this now an academic issue for me.

 

[Zigner]

I can tell you that at least two documents relevant to the OP's case, an Abstract of Judgment and an Earnings Withholding Order provide for the inclusion of a SSAN, particularly the Withholding Order, since it would be the spouses's earning that are at issue, and the option to include the SSAN to aid in identification implies, for me, the right to obtain it.

However, if that is not persuasive, consider sect. 708.030, which gives the judgment creditor the right to require the production of documents, including tax returns. I've always had to show my SSAN on my personal tax returns so, if it's not given voluntarily, the judgment creditor simply serves an inspection demand on the judgment debtor and gets it that way.

Abstract of Judgment applies to the person named in the suit. As you have stated, the EWO allows for the inclusion of the SSN, but it does NOT give you the RIGHT to get it from the original JD.
Section 708.030 gives the right to obtain tax returns, however, the JD also has the right to redact the SSN.