Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtPETERS; BRAY, J., and ST. CLAIR
Citation164 Cal.App.2d 739,330 P.2d 829
PartiesPERFECTION PAINT PRODUCTS, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Girthon JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 17989.
Decision Date03 November 1958

Page 829

330 P.2d 829
164 Cal.App.2d 739
PERFECTION PAINT PRODUCTS, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Girthon JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Civ. 17989.
District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.
Nov. 3, 1958.

Page 830

[164 Cal.App.2d 740] Jane H. Van Hook, Oakland, for appellant.

Stanley M. Fernwood, Oakland, for respondent.

PETERS, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiff has a final judgment against defendant for over $3,800. Plaintiff levied execution on defendant's wages. Defendant claimed that such wages were entirely exempt because all of his earnings were necessary for the support of his family, supporting such claim by the required affidavit. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition. A hearing was had. No transcript of that hearing has been filed. The trial court entered a minute order to the effect 'that Thirty-eight Dollars ($38.00) of the monthly wages is subject to execution.' Defendant appeals.

Plaintiff has failed to file a brief in support of the order. In such event, under Rule 17(b) of the Rules on Appeal 'the court may accept as true the statement of facts in the appellant's opening brief.' The court may assume that the point urged on appeal is meritorious. Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147, 151 P.2d 887; Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136, 128 P.2d 691. But this does not mean that the case will automatically be reversed. The burden to show error is on appellant. Therefore, the court must examine appellant's brief to see if the points raised are meritorious, and, if found not to be meritorious, should affirm. See, generally, 4 Cal.Jur.2d § 496, p. 334.

In his affidavit claiming the exemption defendant lists his income as $348 per month and his 'necessary monthly expenses' as $375.50. Included in the list are 'Installment [164 Cal.App.2d 741] Contracts--$71.00' and 'Incidentals--$25.00.' Appellant states in his brief that he and his wife testified at the hearing as the only witnesses; that appellant testified that he is regularly employed by Crown Paint Company and receives from them $348 monthly as wages; that his wife works intermittently as a domestic, averaging about $16 a week from this source.

Appellant claims that on such a record, as a matter of law, he is entitled to an exemption of all of his wages under section 690.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that one-half of the earnings of a wage earner for a fixed period are exempt from execution without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Randone v. Appellate Department
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 26, 1971
    ...(Citations.) The statute should be liberally construed in order to effectuate this purpose.' (Perfection Paint Prod. v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739, 741, 330 P.2d 829, 8 The decisions cited in Blair vividly illuminate the broad scope of Sniadach outside of the wage garnishment context......
  • Brissette, Matter of, 75-3288
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 23, 1977 from their creditors in bankruptcy pursuant to provisions of state law. (See Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739, 330 P.2d 829 (construing the predecessor statute as intended to allow debtor and family to maintain a basic standard of The order is vacate......
  • Youst v. Longo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 1984
    ...the position that the failure to file a brief does not require an automatic reversal. (Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739 [330 P.2d 829]; Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224 [74 Cal.Rptr. 749].) The better rule and the one which we follow is......
  • Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 19, 1981 that the debtor may have a fair chance to remain a productive member of the community. (Perfection Paint Products v. Johnson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 739, 741, 330 P.2d 829.) Permitting appellant to reach the exempt portion of respondent's wages by setoff would let it accomplish what neithe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT