Greely v. Greely

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that a judgment creditor could not levy on deposit accounts held in the name of the judgment debtor’s purported spouse under the spousal exception to the Enforcement of Judgments Law because the marriage was bigamous and void from inception. The court concluded that the account holder could challenge the levies by motion to quash, reversed the trial court’s ruling, and remanded with directions to return the funds or obtain a court order establishing another valid basis for levy. The opinion was modified on May 27, 2026, to reserve the issue of interest on the levied funds for the trial court.

Holdings

1. Yes. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 187 and its inherent authority, the trial court may entertain a motion to quash notices of levy when necessary to address an apparent defect and prevent the loss of rights, even though the Enforcement of Judgments Law does not expressly provide that procedure.
2. No. The notices of levy were defective and the corresponding levies invalid to the extent they reached accounts held in Jenny's name alone or jointly with her son because Jenny's bigamous marriage to Albert was void ab initio. Patricia therefore could not use the spouse exception in Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160, subdivision (b)(2), to avoid obtaining a court order.
3. Not on the present record and procedural posture. Patricia must first obtain a court order establishing that the funds are subject to levy on a valid basis, such as a claim involving quasi-marital property, fraudulent conveyance, or another recognized theory.
4. Yes. Upon reversal, the appellate court may direct the parties to be returned, so far as possible, to their pre-enforcement positions and may order the return of funds obtained through the improper levies.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court could entertain a motion to quash notices of levy when the Enforcement of Judgments Law does not expressly provide a procedure for challenging a defective levy.
2. Whether a levy on accounts held in the name of a person other than the judgment debtor may proceed without a court order when the supporting affidavit identifies that person as the judgment debtor's spouse, but the marriage was void ab initio because it was bigamous.
3. Whether the appellate court could order the return of funds already obtained through the improper levies.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded