California Assembly Bill AB2837

California 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/15/24
• Refer: 3/21/24
• Report Pass: 3/21/24
• Refer: 4/1/24
• Report Pass: 4/25/24
• Refer: 4/29/24
• Report Pass: 5/1/24
• Engrossed: 5/20/24
• Refer: 5/21/24
• Refer: 5/29/24
• Report Pass: 7/1/24
• Enrolled: 8/31/24
• Chaptered: 9/24/24
• Passed: 9/24/24

Caption

Civil actions: enforcement of money judgments.

Impact

In its revised provisions, the bill mandates that judgment creditors must take substantial steps to verify the addresses of judgment debtors before enforcement actions can be initiated. This includes requiring a declaration regarding the debtor's address verification and limits on the frequency of earnings withholding orders. Additionally, the bill enforces a requirement for courts to return exempt property that has been wrongfully levied, further protecting debtor assets. The overall effect of this bill is to enhance protection for individuals facing debt enforcement, allowing families to retain necessary funds.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2837, authored by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, amends various sections of the Code of Civil Procedure related to the enforcement of money judgments. The primary innovation of AB 2837 is the expansion of the types of retirement plans that are exempt from enforcement actions, allowing debtors to retain a greater portion of their assets for personal use and tax obligations. This change aims to provide financial relief to judgment debtors, ensuring that they have the necessary resources for essential living expenses during the enforcement of a judgment.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 2837 has generally been positive among consumer advocacy groups and debtors, who see this legislation as a fairer approach to debt enforcement. Proponents argue that the bill strikes a necessary balance between the rights of creditors to collect debts and the protection of debtors' essential financial resources. However, concerns have been voiced from creditor representatives regarding the potential for reduced recovery rates and complications in enforcing judgments under the new requirements.

Contention

Despite the general support for the bill's provisions, there are notable contentions regarding the limitations imposed on judgment creditors. Critics, especially from the creditor community, argue that the additional burden of verification steps may hinder their ability to enforce legitimate claims effectively. The debate primarily revolves around the balance between protecting consumer rights and maintaining the efficacy of debt recovery operations without excessive state intervention.