Greely v. Greely

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that a judgment creditor could not levy, without a prior court order, on bank and retirement accounts held by a judgment debtor’s purported spouse where the marriage was bigamous and void ab initio. The court concluded that the supporting affidavits asserting a spousal relationship were insufficient because no valid marriage existed, and it reversed and remanded with directions requiring return of funds obtained through the invalid levies. The court also held that the trial court properly entertained the account holder’s motion to quash under its inherent authority and Code of Civil Procedure section 187.

Holdings

1. A trial court may entertain a motion to quash notices of levy under Code of Civil Procedure section 187 and its inherent authority when the Enforcement of Judgments Law provides no specific procedure for challenging the alleged defect.
2. A levy on deposit accounts held by a purported spouse is defective and invalid when the supporting affidavit relies on a marriage that was bigamous and void ab initio.
3. Patricia must obtain a court order before levying on Jenny's separately held accounts because Jenny is a third party rather than Albert's spouse for purposes of the Enforcement of Judgments Law.
4. Upon reversal, the reviewing court may order the return of funds obtained through an improper levy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court had authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 187 and its inherent powers to entertain a motion to quash notices of levy when the Enforcement of Judgments Law provides no specific procedure for challenging a defective levy.
2. Whether notices of levy supported by an affidavit identifying the account holder as the judgment debtor's spouse are invalid when the purported marriage was bigamous and void ab initio.
3. Whether the judgment creditor could levy on the purported spouse's separately held accounts without first obtaining a court order under Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal had authority to order the return of funds already obtained through the improper levies.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded