BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1388 Page 1 Date of Hearing: September 6, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair AB 1388 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: June 10, 2011 FOR CONCURRENCE SUBJECT : EARNINGS WITHHOLDING ORDERS KEY ISSUE : AT A COURT HEARING TO DETERMINE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FROM WAGE GARNISHMENT PURSUANT TO A VALID EARNINGS WITHHOLDING ORDER, SHOULD THE COURT BE ABLE TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION IN CASES WHERE THE UNDERLYING DEBT WAS INCURRED FOR MEDICAL CARE OR HOSPITAL SERVICES RENDERED TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR OR HIS FAMILY? SYNOPSIS According to the author, the working poor in California remain at risk of falling into hunger and homelessness when they are unable to pay medical bills because existing case law effectively prevents a judgment debtor from obtaining an exemption from wage garnishment for that portion of his earnings needed for the support of the debtor and his family (also known as a "hardship exemption") when the underlying debt was incurred for medical care for the debtor or his family. This result stems from the holding of J.J. MacIntyre Co. v. Duren (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, where the court expressly held that medical care or hospital services constitute a "common necessary of life" under which CCP Section 706.051(c)(1) requires denial of a claim of hardship exemption by a judgment debtor having such medical debt. This bill seeks to make the hardship exemption from wage garnishment available to a judgment debtor where the underlying debt was incurred for medical care or hospital services. In order to avoid unintended consequences in the family law arena--unrelated to medical debt--that may arise from deletion of the "common necessaries of life" clause, the bill prudently codifies an exception to the hardship exemption for orders or awards for attorney's fees in certain family law proceedings, as specified. Under this bill, the judgment debtor is not permanently relieved of any portion of the underlying medical debt. Instead, this bill allows the court in medical debt cases AB 1388 Page 2 to consider the debtor's claim that his current financial hardship requires a certain portion of his wages to be exempted from wage garnishment for the support of the debtor and his family, and allows the court to exercise its existing authority to fashion a partial payment plan or otherwise modify the terms of the earnings withholding order. Supporters of the bill, including several legal service providers, contend that the bill simply levels the playing field by putting medical debt on equal footing with other forms of unsecured debt, and that making the hardship exemption available in cases of medical debt is appropriate because it is often incurred involuntarily or may be caused in large part by the improper actions of others. The bill is opposed by the California Association of Collectors, who contends that the bill would create a vehicle for some consumers to avoid paying their just debts while adding greater burdens for those who do pay the debts they owe. SUMMARY : Allows the court to grant a judgment debtor's claim of exemption from wage garnishment in cases where the underlying debt was incurred for medical care or hospital services rendered to the judgment debtor or his or her family. Specifically, this bill: 1)Deletes a statutory exception for "common necessaries of life," thereby making the portion of the judgment debtor's earnings that he or she proves is necessary to support himself or herself and his or her family exempt from wage garnishment if the underlying debt was incurred for the "common necessaries of life" furnished to the judgment debtor or his family. 2)Codifies an exception for specified orders or awards for attorney's fees in certain family law proceedings, thereby preserving existing authority, pursuant to case law, to garnish a judgment debtor's wages pursuant to an order or award for the payment of attorney's fees in specified cases relating to divorce, child custody, and child and spousal support. 3)Clarifies that a statutory reference to "common necessaries of life" in the Government Code shall be interpreted consistently with the use of that term as it read in Code of Civil Procedure Section 706.051 prior to January 1, 2012. AB 1388 Page 3 EXISTING LAW : 1)Exempts from levy, with certain categorical exceptions, the portion of a judgment debtor's earnings which the judgment debtor proves is necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or his or her family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 706.051(b).) 2)Provides that the above exemption is not available if any of the following exceptions applies: a) The debt was incurred for the common necessaries of life furnished to the judgment debtor or the family of the judgment debtor; b) The debt was incurred for personal services rendered by an employee or former employee of the judgment debtor; c) The order is a withholding order for support to collect delinquent amounts payable under a judgment for the support of a child, or spouse or former spouse, of the judgment debtor; or, d) The order is a state tax order, governed by Article 4 (commencing with Civil Code of Procedure (CCP) Section 706.070). (Code of Civil Procedure Section 706.051(c).) 3)Establishes that hospital services rendered to a judgment debtor or his or her family constitute a "common necessary of life" for which the debtor is not entitled to exemption from levy or earnings withholding pursuant to CCP Section 706.051. (J.J. MacIntyre Co. v. Duren (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16.) 4)Establishes that the rendering of legal services and the advancement of costs of litigation giving rise to a pendente lite award to any attorney in a marriage dissolution action qualify as "common necessaries of life" for the benefit of the indigent spouse, thereby allowing enforcement of the award by a writ of execution on the other spouse's earnings against a claim of exemption of those earnings. (In re Marriage of Pallesi (1977) 73 Cal. App. 3d 424.) AB 1388 Page 4 5)Requires a court to grant an applicant permission to proceed without paying court fees and costs because of his or her financial condition if the applicant, as individually determined by the court, cannot pay court fees without using moneys that normally would pay for the common necessaries of life for the applicant and the applicant's family. Provides that "common necessaries of life," as used here, shall be interpreted consistently with the use of that term in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 706.051 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Government Code Section 68632(c).) FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : According to the author, the working poor in California remain at risk of falling into hunger and homelessness when they are unable to pay medical bills because existing case law effectively prevents a judgment debtor from obtaining an exemption from wage garnishment for that portion of his earnings needed for the support of the debtor and his family when the underlying debt was incurred for medical care for the debtor or his family. To address this, the bill seeks to permit judgment debtors to claim the exemption from wage garnishment in cases where the underlying debt was incurred for medical care or hospital services. Under this bill, the judgment debtor is not permanently relieved of any portion of the underlying medical debt. Instead, this bill allows the court in medical debt cases to consider the debtor's claim that his current financial hardship requires a certain portion of his wages to be exempted from wage garnishment for the support of the debtor and his family, and allows the court to exercise its existing authority to fashion a partial payment plan or otherwise modify the terms of the earnings withholding order. Claiming an Exemption from Wage Garnishment: A Procedural Background . Under the Wage Garnishment Law (Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure), service of an earnings withholding order (EWO) creates a lien upon the earnings of the judgment debtor that are required to be withheld and in the specified amount to be withheld pursuant to the order. If no prior hearing has been held with respect to the EWO (or there has been a material change in circumstances since the time of the last prior hearing), then the judgment debtor may claim an exemption from the EWO by filing a claim of exemption and financial statement (forms both adopted by the AB 1388 Page 5 Judicial Council) with the levying officer. On the claim of exemption form, the debtor attests that he needs either all or a specified portion of his earnings to support himself or his family. On the financial statement, the debtor provides a detailed account of his income and expenses that support his claim that the court should approve an exemption. Existing law requires a judgment creditor who desires to contest a claim of exemption to file a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption within 10 days after the required notice of claim of exemption has been mailed to the creditor. If the judgment creditor files this notice of opposition with the levying officer within the 10-day period, the judgment creditor is entitled to a hearing on the claim of exemption, as specified. If, however, the levying officer does not receive a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption within the 10-day period, then the EWO will effectively be terminated or modified, depending on the particular claim of exemption made by the judgment debtor. For example, if all of the judgment debtor's earnings were claimed to be exempt, the levying officer shall serve the employer with a notice that the EWO has been terminated. If only a portion of the judgment debtor's earnings was claimed to be exempt, then the levying officer shall serve a modified EWO that reflects the amount of earnings claimed to be exempt. Because the EWO is either terminated or modified according to terms proposed by the judgment debtor when the claim of exemption is unopposed, current law provides an incentive to the judgment creditor to file a notice of opposition-thus triggering a hearing where the court shall determine the merit of the judgment debtor's claim of exemption. Not surprisingly, according to the author, creditors oppose the claim of exemption "nearly 100% of the time." Stated Need for the Bill. According to the author, this bill is needed to address consequences suffered by the working poor that stem from case law interpreting Section 706.051(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That statute provides that an exemption from wage garnishment for the support of a judgment debtor and his family "is not available if...Ýt]he debt was incurred for the common necessaries of life (emphasis added) furnished to the judgment debtor or the family of the judgment debtor." The author states: AB 1388 Page 6 Amending this antiquated section of law by removing Code Civ. Proc. § 706.051(c)(1) will merely give individuals the opportunity to prove to a judge that they can't currently afford a garnishment or levy. Debtors cannot file Claims of Exemption from garnishments and levies that stem from medical bills, food, shelter or other common necessities of life. This leads to the perverse situation in which someone who runs up a huge gambling debt at a casino can escape having his wages garnished, but a debtor taken to the Ýemergency room] after a car accident will lose 25% of her wages till the medical bill is paid. For low-income workers, wage garnishments can quickly turn into homelessness and hunger. This is especially cruel because medical debts are considered a common necessity of life and are often the least voluntary of debts: no one chooses to fall ill. With budget cuts to Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, Indigent Care, and nearly all other health-related programs, many more of the working poor are going to have medical bills, especially emergency room bills that they can't pay. Eliminating § 706.051(c)(1) will not erase anyone's debt for the common necessities of life. It will simply provide for more reasonable repayment options to be negotiated or for repayment to be delayed until it no longer means disaster for the debtor's family. Statutory Interpretation of Section 706.051 and "Common Necessaries of Life." Subdivision (b) of Section 706.051 continues the hardship exemption from wage garnishment that has existed, in one form or another, since at least 1933 and possibly much earlier. (See Former Section 690.6 added by Stats. 1935 c.723, derived from Former Section 690, enacted in 1872.) The basic theory of providing an exemption of wages necessary for use of a judgment debtor's family is that the debtor and his family, regardless of the debtor's improvidence, will retain enough money to maintain a basic standard of living in order that the debtor may have a fair chance to remain a productive member of the community. Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958, Cal App 1st Dist) 164 Cal App 2d 739. In addition, statutes exempting property from execution should be fairly and liberally construed and, as far as practicable, beneficially to the debtor. Van Lue v. Wahrlich-Cornett Co. (1910) 12 Cal App 749. AB 1388 Page 7 In examining the legislative intent behind the exemption, the court in White v. Gobey (1933) held that "necessities, then, used for the very maintenance of the debtor's family, for food, clothing and the like, are what the legislature meant to make special provision for." 130 Cal. App. Supp. 789, 792. Subdivision (c) specifies exceptions to the hardship exemption-cases where the exemption is not allowed even though the judgment debtor can show the necessity for exempting all or part of his earnings. The first such exception provides that an exemption from wage garnishment for the support of a judgment debtor and his family is not available if "the debt was incurred for the common necessaries of life furnished to the judgment debtor or the family of the judgment debtor." In Los Angeles Finance Co. v. Flores (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1952), the court, in ascertaining legislative intent behind the exception for "common necessaries of life" concluded that "obviously, the Legislature, cognizant of the fact that to the great majority of persons supporting a family the earnings of the past 30 days are required for such basic things as food, heat, shelter, etc. (common to all), desired to make sure that these earnings shall not be taken to pay for something less basic." 110 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 850, 856. According to the Committee's research, J.J. MacIntyre Co. v. Duren (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16 is the first case that explicitly holds that medical care or hospital services constitute a "common necessary of life" for the purpose of determining whether the exception (currently articulated by Section 706.051(c)(1)) should apply to disallow the hardship exemption. In J.J. MacIntyre Co., the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County held that the defendant was not entitled to an earning exemption because "the underlying debt was an assigned bill for hospital services rendered to the defendant or his family . . . Ýwhich] is a common necessary of life." 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 19. The court also stated "the term 'common necessaries of life' . . . means essentials commonly required by all persons for the sustenance of life, whatever their employment status and includes medical care." Id. at 19. Legal service attorneys contacted by the Committee report that when judgment creditors file a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption in medical debt cases, they typically cite CCP AB 1388 Page 8 706.051 (c)(1) and the J.J. MacIntyre decision as the basis for which the claim of exemption should be denied by the court. This bill does not discharge the underlying medical debt, but allows the court to consider an exemption in medical debt cases. In effect, by making the claim of exemption available in cases of medical debt, this bill operates simply to give judgment debtors the opportunity to prove that they cannot currently afford a garnishment or levy for medical debt. The court would be allowed but not required to grant a judgment debtor's claim of exemption from wage garnishment in cases where the underlying debt was incurred for medical care or hospital services rendered to the judgment debtor or his family. The bill does not affect the right of the debtor to file a claim of exemption, nor of a creditor to file a notice of opposition to the claim to obtain a court hearing to decide the matter. Under this bill, the judgment debtor will still have to submit a detailed financial statement to demonstrate the portion of his earnings that he contends should be exempt from garnishment for the necessary support of his family. The court will still have to determine the merit of the judgment debtor's claim of exemption, but it would allow approval of the claim in cases of medical debt where the court is currently constrained by the J.J. MacIntyre decision. This bill does not discharge the underlying debt; whether the court approves the claim of exemption or not, the underlying judgment is still valid and can be collected in the future, including interest. Recent amendments narrow the scope of the bill to preserve existing family law provisions unrelated to medical debt. On June 10, 2011, this bill was amended in the Senate to strike the statutory exception for "common necessaries of life" from Section 706.051. In order to avoid unintended consequences in the family law arena--unrelated to medical debt--that may have arisen from deletion of that provision, the bill was also amended, quite prudently, to codify the status quo exception to the hardship exemption for orders or awards for attorney's fees in certain family law proceedings, as specified. As a result, the June 10 amendments effectively preserve the existing ability of a judgment creditor, pursuant to case law, to garnish a judgment debtor's wages pursuant to an order or award for the payment of attorney's fees in certain cases relating to divorce (Family Code Section 2030), child custody (Family Code Section 3121), and child and spousal support (Family Code Section 3357). AB 1388 Page 9 By preserving the ability to garnish wages for payment of court-ordered family law attorney fees, even when those wages are needed to support the debtor's family, this bill would preserve the court's holding in In re Marriage of Pallesi (1977) 73 Cal. App. 3d 424. In that case, the Court of Appeal (5th Appellate District) held that: The rendering of legal services and the advancement of costs of litigation giving rise to a pendente lite award to any attorney in a marriage dissolution action clearly qualify as "common necessaries of life" for the benefit of the indigent spouse, thereby giving the attorney the right to enforce the award by writ of execution on the other spouse's earnings against a claim of exemption of those earnings. (Id. at 427-28.) The Court further explained the public policy rationale for its holding: ÝT]here is a strong public policy favoring the payment of court-approved attorney's fees and costs. If by an act of reconciliation a debtor spouse can escape liability for payment of the fees and costs, it would become difficult for indigent spouses to obtain legal counsel in marital dissolution proceedings. Furthermore, if a pendente lite order for attorney's fees and costs is not enforceable by execution against the earnings of the debtor spouse after reconciliation, counsel in dissolution proceedings will be encouraged to levy wage garnishments immediately upon obtaining an unconditional order for fees and costs, contrary to the strong public policy favoring reconciliation. (Id. at 427-28.) In short, the Senate amendments narrow, not broaden, the scope of the bill to ensure that its effect is only with respect to wage garnishment in medical debt cases, and to ensure it does not upset existing law or public policy unrelated to medical debt. The bill effectively preserves the status quo with respect to wage garnishment and court orders for attorney fees in certain family law matters, and does not create new rights or means of enforcing these orders. This bill also preserves case law with respect to court evaluation of fee waiver applications, unrelated to medical AB 1388 Page 10 debt. Existing Government Code Section 68632 provides that "common necessaries of life," as used in the Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Government Code, shall be interpreted consistent with the use of the term in Code of Civil Procedure Section 706.051, a code section amended by this bill. Section 68632(c) provides courts discretionary authority to grant a fee waiver for persons who are not on public assistance, as specified. In order to preserve the case law regarding the definition of that term under CCP Section 706.051, this bill would amend Govt. Code Section 68632 to clarify that the reference to "common necessaries of life" refers to CCP Section 706.051 as it read prior to January 1, 2012, the effective date that section would be changed if this bill is chaptered into law. This clarification seeks to ensure that this bill will preserve existing interpretation of the term "common necessaries of life" under the Government Code for the purpose of a court's evaluation of fee waiver applications. Without this clarifying language, an unintended consequence may be the elimination of guidance for how hearing officers should decide whether to grant fee waivers to low-income persons in certain civil and family law matters. Studies indicate an increasing percentage of bankruptcy filings are associated with illness and medical bills and that medical debt is largely involuntary. In a 2009 study published in the American Journal of Medicine, Harvard researchers surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. Debtors were designated as "medically bankrupt" if they: (1) cited illness or medical bills as a specific reason for bankruptcy; OR (2) reported uncovered medical bills greater than $1000 in the past two years; OR (3) lost at least 2 weeks of work-related income due to illness or injury; OR (4) mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Using these criteria, the researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 62.1% of all bankruptcies, and in 92% of these "medical bankruptcies," the debtor had a medical debt over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. In comparing this data with the results from a previous 2001 study employing identical methodology, the researchers were able to determine that the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6% from 2001 to 2007, and that after controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38 fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. AB 1388 Page 11 Telephone interviews of the 639 identified patients whose illness contributed to bankruptcy revealed the severity of job problems caused by illness. The researchers found that in 37.9% of patients' families, someone had lost or quit a job because of the medical event; 24.4% had been fired, and only 37.1% subsequently regained employment. (Himmelstein D., Thorne D., et al. Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study. American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 122, No. 8, August 2009.) In 2004, the Health Consumer Alliance of California (HCA) published a study titled "Sick and in Debt" that documents cases of how consumers got into medical debt at no fault of their own. The HCA report concludes that medical debt is largely involuntary and not caused by financial irresponsibility. The report's executive summary states: The public perception is that medical debt happens primarily to consumers who are financially irresponsible. HCA data brings to light many improper, and sometimes illegal, practices by state administrators and providers that cause medical debt to fall on low-income consumers. The medical debt of HCA consumers is caused in large part by the improper actions of others. Medical debt dashes the future hopes and dreams of low-income individuals. An expensive, unplanned trip to the hospital can mean higher education is postponed or never pursued. A credit record with outstanding debt effectively prevents many families from realizing the dream of home ownership. Outstanding debt means that precious family resources are directed to debt servicing, not to other family needs. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : This bill is supported by a number of legal service providers who report serving low-income families who often face wage garnishments. These supporters, including the Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP), California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and East Bay Community Law Center, contend generally that extending the protection of the hardship exemption to medical debt cases will help ensure that working Californians in those situations can exempt from wage garnishment the basic income necessary to support their families and avoid being forced into hunger or homelessness. For AB 1388 Page 12 example, Western Center writes in support: Under AB 1388 these harsh outcomes on families can be partially limited. While families would still be responsible for debt they owe (even if unfairly incurred), they could not have their income taken by a medical debt collector. Instead the debt collector will have to negotiate with the family to establish a repayment method. This gives the family the final decision on how their earnings are to be spent and to ensure that families can take care of the basic necessities of life. The Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) also writes in support, stating that the bill "protects California's working poor by putting medical debt on equal footing with other forms of unsecured debt." CAOC further states, "Understanding that exemptions are available to debtors in other situations, it is cruel and unjustifiable that our law disfavors those who fall into (medical) debt as a result of unforeseeable, inescapable health emergencies." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Association of Collectors (CAC) opposes this bill for a variety of reasons. In their opposition letter, CAC states: The entire public policy rationale for excluding common necessaries of life from the claim of exemption process was to protect consumers from creditors refusing to extend credit for those necessaries. The net effect of taking medical care and hospital services out of the definition will be to encourage health care providers to demand payment prior to rendering of services. Consumers will be forced to pay using bank credit cards with higher interest rates and penalties. In addition, this bill would create an unintended, unjust and negative impact on the largest number of consumers that pay without the need for legal action and it will force the medical providers to request payment from all consumers up front. . . This bill would create a vehicle for those consumers to avoid paying their just debts while adding greater burdens for those who pay their just and owing medical debts. . . AB 1388 seeks a back-door approach, post judgment, to AB 1388 Page 13 try to avoid repayment of legal debts already incurred. It takes away the most effective legal tool to implement repayment where a court has already established the legal obligation for services rendered where there is no dispute. USCB, Inc., which describes itself as an "accounts receivable management company specializing in medical receivable services," contends that this bill would "further frustrate the ability of creditors to collect debts which are lawfully owed." USCB also asserts that "debtors will be able to increase the likelihood that they will escape having to pay debts they lawfully owe. As a result, creditors will be forced to charge higher interest rates to those consumers who do pay their debts." With respect to the accountability of debtors, despite these contentions it should be noted that this bill does not act to discharge any underlying judgment debt, medical or otherwise. Ultimately, judgment debtors would still be responsible for paying for services rendered, as is true under existing law. The hardship exemption, which would be made available to medical debt cases, protects from garnishment only that portion of the judgment debtor's earnings that are necessary to support the debtor and his family for the statutory lien period created by the earnings withholding order, but does not excuse the debt itself. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) California Church Impact California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) California Labor Federation California National Organization of Women California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation California School Employees Association Consumer Attorneys of California East Bay Community Law Center Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice Western Center on Law and Poverty Opposition AB 1388 Page 14 California Association of Collectors USCB, Inc. Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334