Direct Capital Corporation v. Brooks CA 2/2
This is the second appeal filed by defendant Grant Brooks (Grant) after the trial court issued a wage garnishment order for a debt incurred by his then spouse (Mary Brooks, with many aliases, hereafter Mary). In the first appeal, we affirmed the garnishment order, upholding the trial court’s finding that a debt incurred by Grant’s attorney-spouse for office computer equipment was for the “necessaries of life” for that particular marriage within the meaning of Family Code section 914 because the spouse’s law practice generated community property income. (Direct Capital Corp. v. Brooks (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1168, 1170 (Direct Capital).) The garnishment order was affirmed without prejudice to a motion in the trial court to vacate or modify it based on the terms of a divorce judgment entered after the notice of appeal was filed. (Id. at pp. 1170, 1178.)
Comments on Direct Capital Corporation v. Brooks CA 2/2