Fin. Holding Co. v. Am. Inst. of Certified Tax Coaches, Inc.
Decision Date | 29 November 2018 |
Docket Number | D072910 |
Citation | 29 Cal.App.5th 663,240 Cal.Rptr.3d 604 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Respondent, v. The AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED TAX COACHES, INC., Appellant. |
Dental & Medical Counsel and Mukesh Advani, San Ramon, for Appellant.
Law Office of David Sean Dufek and David Sean Dufek, San Diego, for Respondent.
HALLER, Acting P. J.Finance Holding Company, LLC (Finance) obtained a judgment against Dominque Molina for about $50,000 plus interest and attorney fees. In judgment enforcement proceedings, Finance sought documents from Molina's employer, The American Institute of Certified Tax Coaches, Inc. (Institute). Finance requested numerous categories of business, tax, and bank records, without limiting the request to information relevant to Molina. The court overruled the Institute's objections and ordered the Institute "to produce for inspection and copying all the demanded documents."
On appeal, the Institute contends the document production order is overbroad under the statute governing third party discovery in judgment enforcement proceedings.
( Code Civ. Proc., § 708.120.)1 Finance responds that the order is not an appealable final order, and therefore we should dismiss the appeal. On the merits, Finance contends the document production order was proper under related statutes and/or the court's equitable authority in judgment collection proceedings.
We conclude the order is appealable. We also determine the order is statutorily overbroad, and the court did not have the authority to order the expansive document production that went far beyond the statutory guidelines. We remand for the court to narrow the order to require production only of those documents pertaining to Molina's compensation, property, or services, and/or the Institute's debts owed to Molina.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Accountonit, LLP entered into a contract with a bank for a $50,000 credit line, and Molina signed a personal guaranty to repay borrowed sums. In January 2014, Finance, as the bank's assignee, sued Molina alleging the borrowed funds had not been repaid. After a trial, the court entered judgment in Finance's favor for $49,958.74 plus prejudgment interest and attorney fees. Molina appealed, and this court affirmed the judgment in May 2016. (Finance Holding Co., LLC v. Molina (May 19, 2016, D067952) [nonpub. opn.].)
While the appeal was pending, Finance sought to enforce the judgment and engaged in "substantial collection related activity." In November 2015, Finance's counsel conducted Molina's judgment debtor examination, during which Molina stated she worked for the Institute as an instructor, and her compensation consisted solely of medical insurance benefits and $4,500 in monthly rental payments for her residence. She denied an ownership interest in the Institute, that she was an officer of the Institute, or that the Institute owed her any money. Molina said she was separated from her husband, and had no assets other than a vehicle.
About 16 months later, Finance moved for a judgment debtor examination of the Institute and the court signed an order scheduling the examination. The order attached a document titled "DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO BE PRODUCED," listing 15 categories of requested documents, including (for the past five years) all of the Institute's bank records, federal and state tax returns, deposit accounts, business books and records, financial statements, documents from the California Employment Commission, sales tax documents, retirement plan information, and credit card statements.
This document request read in full:
On May 10, 2017, the Institute's counsel notified Finance it would not provide "information about the Institute's finances outside of that which directly relates to Ms. Molina's compensation." The Institute's counsel attached a letter from the Institute's accounting manager addressed to Molina, stating Molina was "not permitted to disseminate any information not directly related to your compensation without Board approval."
Two days later, Molina appeared at a debtor examination on behalf of the Institute, and said that after her November 2015 examination, her job title changed and she was now the Institute's chief executive officer (CEO). She said she had retained her instructor duties, and her current compensation consisted solely of $4,900 rental payments to her landlord (a slight increase from the former monthly payments). She said the Institute also reimburses her for business travel (which involves primarily teaching classes in various locations). She denied any ownership interest in the Institute, and said the Institute no longer pays for her insurance or any other benefits. She identified the location of the Institute's bank accounts; testified that the Institute was governed by an independent board of directors; and said she did not have the authority to write checks or use the Institute's credit card.
The Institute produced only two documents responsive to Finance's document request: (1) an unsigned two-page agreement ("Work Agreement") dated March...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Curtis v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
...Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th 1, 5, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 571, 243 P.3d 575 ( Dana Point ), fn. omitted; accord, Finance Holding Co., LLC v. Molina (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 663, 673, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 604.) " ‘ "It is not the form of the decree but the substance and effect of the adjudication which is deter......
-
Wong v. Wong (In re Loy Tim)
...are split in their results, based on the differing circumstances presented. (See Finance Holding Co., LLC v. The American Institute of Certified Tax Coaches, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 663, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 604 [immediately appealable]; Yolanda’s Inc. v. Kahl & Goveia Commercial Real Estate ......
-
Zissler v. Saville
... ... D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1251, 26 ... ...
-
Shrewsbury Mgmt., Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.
...that such orders are directly appealable. ( Macaluso v . Superior Court (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1049, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 318 ; Finance Holding Co ., LLC v . The American Institute of Certified Tax Coaches , Inc . (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 663, 679, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 604 ( Finance Holding ).) Ot......
-
Recent Developments Affecting Insolvency and Commercial and Consumer Finance in California and the Ninth Circuit
...or money owed by that third party to the judgment debtor. [Fin. Holding Co., LLC v. American Inst. of Certified Tax Coaches, Inc., 29 Cal. App. 5th 663 (2018).]Comment (DS): Given the current language of the statute involved, Code of Civil Procedure section 708.120(a), I believe that the co......