Nebel

Nebel v. Sulak

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 728·73 Cal. App. 4th 1363·87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385·99 Daily Journal DAR 8006·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6285
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 4, 1999No. E023264California2,020 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gaut, J.

1. Introduction

This appeal raises several questions of significance. First, to what extent may a disinterested third party observe a judgment debtor examination, and, *1366 as a collateral issue, may a nonlawyer conduct a judgment debtor examination to enforce a small claims judgment?

We hold that a judgment debtor examination is a judicial proceeding open to the public. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 124 and 708.110, subd. (a).) 1 Additionally, the examination must be conducted by a judicial officer or a member of the State Bar of California. (§ 708.140, subd. (b).) In the present case, the court erred by granting an injunction, the effect of which was entirely to prohibit defendant Joseph Sulak, Sr. (Sulak) from attending the subject judgment debtor examinations. The examinations, all of which took place in the courthouse, were not private. Sulak was entitled to observe the examinations in a way that did not unduly interfere with them. Therefore, the injunction issued against Sulak was overly broad. Furthermore, Sulak is correct that plaintiff Pat Nebel (Nebel) should not be conducting judgment debtor examinations unless she is a member of the Bar. We reverse the judgment.

2.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.