You fill out California Form EJ-152 by completing the case caption, identifying the elder or dependent adult abuse judgment debtor and their employer, attaching the certified judgment, and asking the court clerk to issue an Earnings Withholding Order for Elder or Dependent Adult Financial Abuse that captures up to 100% of the debtor’s non-exempt disposable earnings. The form is the gateway to the enhanced wage garnishment remedy created by Code of Civil Procedure section 706.109, and it works only when the underlying judgment rests on a finding of financial abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30.
Filing the wrong wage garnishment form, or filing EJ-152 without the required financial abuse finding, costs you the supercharged collection power the Legislature created for elder fraud victims. According to the California Department of Justice elder abuse data, financial abuse drains an estimated $2.6 billion from older Americans every year, and California courts entered more than 12,000 elder abuse restraining and judgment matters in the most recent reporting cycle from the Judicial Council Court Statistics Report.
- ⚖️ How to read every line of the official Judicial Council Form EJ-152 without missing a checkbox.
- 💰 How the 100% withholding rule under CCP § 706.109 differs from the 25% federal cap in 15 U.S.C. § 1673.
- 🧓 How to prove financial abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30 so the clerk will issue the order.
- 🧾 How to coordinate EJ-152 with Form WG-035, the levying officer, and the debtor’s employer.
- 🛡️ How to defeat common claims of exemption and avoid the seven mistakes that derail elder abuse wage garnishments.
What Form EJ-152 Actually Does
Form EJ-152 is the Application for Issuance of Earnings Withholding Order for Elder or Dependent Adult Financial Abuse. The Judicial Council adopted it as a mandatory form to give judgment creditors a way to ask the court clerk for the special wage garnishment order described in Code of Civil Procedure section 706.109. Without this form, a creditor with an elder abuse judgment falls back to the standard 25% wage garnishment under the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act and Code of Civil Procedure section 706.050.
The form sits at the intersection of state and federal collection law. Federal law caps ordinary wage garnishments at 25% of disposable earnings, but the U.S. Department of Labor wage garnishment guide confirms that states may set lower caps and that federal limits do not preempt special state remedies for narrow categories like child support and elder abuse. California uses that opening to authorize withholding above 25%, and in some cases up to the debtor’s full non-exempt earnings, when the judgment arises from financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult.
The plain-English point is simple. EJ-152 tells the clerk, this is not an ordinary debt; it is an elder abuse judgment, and the Legislature wants this debtor’s paycheck garnished harder than usual. The consequence of skipping EJ-152 and filing the standard Form WG-001 is that the debtor pays back the judgment at the slower 25% rate, which often lets them outrun the 10-year renewal clock before the elder victim recovers in full.
A common misconception is that EJ-152 is a substitute for the standard wage garnishment forms. It is not. EJ-152 is the application the creditor files; the clerk then issues the actual order on Form WG-035 and the levying officer serves the employer using the standard packet that includes Form WG-002 and Form WG-003.
Why This Form Exists
The Legislature added Code of Civil Procedure section 706.109 through Assembly Bill 1934 in 2018 after years of lobbying by the California Commission on Aging and prosecutor groups frustrated by the 25% cap. The official Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of AB 1934 explained that elder abusers often hide assets and rely on the slow 25% drip to wear down victims. The new statute lets a court direct withholding above the federal floor whenever the judgment is based on a finding of financial abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30.
The consequence of misunderstanding the statute is severe. If the underlying judgment does not contain a financial abuse finding, the clerk must reject EJ-152 and the creditor is stuck with the ordinary garnishment. A real-world example involves a Sacramento family that won a $400,000 judgment against a paid caregiver for theft but forgot to ask the court to add a financial abuse finding; the clerk refused EJ-152 and the family had to file a motion to amend the judgment before garnishing at the higher rate.
Before You Touch the Form: Five Prerequisites
Before you fill out a single field on EJ-152, confirm five prerequisites. First, you must hold a money judgment entered by a California court. Second, the judgment, the verdict form, or a post-trial order must contain an express finding of financial abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30. Third, you must know where the debtor works, including the legal name and street address of the employer.
Fourth, the judgment must still be enforceable, meaning it has not lapsed under the 10-year rule in Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020. Fifth, you must have a current accrued total that includes principal, post-judgment interest at 10% under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010, and recoverable costs added through a properly filed Memorandum of Costs After Judgment (MC-012).
The consequence of skipping any prerequisite is a rejected application. A common mistake is assuming the financial abuse finding is automatic in any elder fraud case. It is not. The trial court must make the finding on the record, and as the Court of Appeal explained in Das v. Bauer, 245 Cal.App.4th 1196 (2016), bare allegations of elder fraud in a complaint do not substitute for a fact-finding by the trier of fact.
A real-world example: Maria, a daughter caring for her 82-year-old father, sued her brother for draining their father’s home equity line. The jury awarded $250,000, but the verdict form only said fraud. Maria’s lawyer had to bring a Code of Civil Procedure section 663 motion to amend the judgment to include the financial abuse finding before the clerk would issue the EJ-152 order.
Confirming the Financial Abuse Finding
The financial abuse finding is the heart of EJ-152. Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30 defines financial abuse to include taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use, with intent to defraud, or by undue influence. The statute applies to anyone 65 or older and to dependent adults aged 18 to 64 with physical or mental limitations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.23.
The consequence of an unclear finding is a clerical rejection or, worse, a successful motion to quash by the debtor. The cleanest practice is to attach a certified copy of the judgment and a certified copy of the special verdict or statement of decision that contains the words financial abuse and a citation to § 15610.30. The California Courts self-help guide on enforcement explains that judgment creditors carry the burden of proving entitlement to enhanced remedies.
A common misconception is that an elder abuse restraining order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03 qualifies. It does not, because EJ-152 requires a money judgment, not an injunction. A real-world example involves David, who held a stay-away order against his uncle but no money judgment; he had to file a separate civil action and obtain a damages judgment before EJ-152 became available.
Line-by-Line Walkthrough of Form EJ-152
Form EJ-152 is one page with ten numbered items, a caption, and a signature block. Read it alongside the official Judicial Council instructions for elder abuse enforcement forms. Each item answers a specific question the clerk needs in order to issue the order.
Caption and Court Information
At the top, you fill out the standard caption used on every California civil filing. Enter the attorney or party name, State Bar number if applicable, address, telephone, email, and the name of the party represented. The next block names the Superior Court of California, County of ____, and gives the street, mailing address, city, zip, and branch name of the courthouse that entered the judgment.
The consequence of caption errors is delay. Clerks routinely reject forms that list the wrong branch or that misspell the county. A common mistake is filing in a different county where the debtor now lives; the Code of Civil Procedure section 697.510 framework requires the application to be filed in the issuing court, not the debtor’s current residence.
A real-world example: Linda obtained a judgment in Los Angeles County, then moved to Nevada. When the debtor relocated to Fresno, Linda incorrectly filed EJ-152 in Fresno; the clerk rejected the filing and Linda had to refile in Los Angeles, losing two months of garnishment.
Item 1: Application Statement
Item 1 contains a single sentence stating that the applicant requests issuance of an earnings withholding order for elder or dependent adult financial abuse under § 706.109. There is nothing to write here; the language is preprinted. The plain-English point is that filing the form is the request. The consequence of crossing out or modifying the language is rejection, because EJ-152 is a mandatory form under California Rules of Court rule 1.31.
A common misconception is that you can hand-edit mandatory forms to fit unusual facts. You cannot. If the facts do not fit, attach a separate declaration on pleading paper.
Item 2: Judgment Debtor Information
Item 2 asks for the judgment debtor’s full legal name, residence address, and Social Security number. The SSN is required for the levying officer to confirm the debtor’s identity at the employer; under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.108, the application is confidential and is not part of the public file. The Judicial Council privacy rule, California Rules of Court rule 1.20, authorizes including the SSN here precisely because the document is sealed.
The consequence of leaving the SSN blank is that the levying officer cannot match the debtor against payroll records, which leads to the employer rejecting the order. A real-world example: Robert filed EJ-152 against a debtor named John Smith; without the SSN, the employer’s payroll department had three John Smiths and refused to withhold from any of them.
A common mistake is using a maiden name or nickname. The form requires the legal name as it appears on the judgment. If the debtor has changed names, attach a copy of the name change order or marriage certificate.
Item 3: Employer Information
Item 3 asks for the legal name and street address of the employer where the debtor receives wages, salary, commissions, or bonuses. Use the entity’s legal name as registered with the California Secretary of State business search, not a trade name. The street address must be a physical location, because the levying officer cannot serve a P.O. box under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.101.
The consequence of an incorrect employer name is wasted service fees and a 30-day delay while the levying officer reissues service. A real-world example: Patricia listed Costco as the employer; the levying officer rejected the order because the legal name is Costco Wholesale Corporation, and Patricia had to pay the sheriff’s $40 service fee twice.
A common misconception is that 1099 contractors are reachable through wage garnishment. They are not. Independent contractors must be reached through a third-party levy on accounts receivable or a debtor examination under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.110.
Item 4: Total Amount Due
Item 4 lists the total amount the creditor seeks to recover, broken into principal, accrued interest, costs after judgment, and any credits for partial payments. Post-judgment interest accrues at 10% simple under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010. Costs require a previously served and unopposed Memorandum of Costs (MC-012) under California Rules of Court rule 3.1700.
The consequence of inflating the total is a successful claim of exemption and possible sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. A real-world example: Henry added attorney’s fees to item 4 without first obtaining a fee award; the debtor moved to quash and the court ordered Henry to pay $1,500 in sanctions.
A common mistake is forgetting to deduct partial wage garnishment amounts already collected under an earlier WG-002. The clerk audits the math and a discrepancy of even one dollar causes rejection.
Item 5: Statement of Financial Abuse Finding
Item 5 is the statutory heart of EJ-152. The applicant checks one of two boxes confirming that (a) the judgment expressly includes a finding of financial abuse, or (b) a separate court order entered after the judgment includes that finding. The applicant must also identify the date of the judgment or order and attach a certified copy as Exhibit A.
The consequence of checking the wrong box is rejection by the clerk. The Judicial Council form instructions require strict compliance because the enhanced remedy depends on the finding. A real-world example: Susan checked box (a) but her judgment only said intentional infliction of emotional distress; the clerk caught the discrepancy and rejected the filing.
A common misconception is that punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294 automatically include a financial abuse finding. They do not. Punitive damages can be based on malice, oppression, or fraud unrelated to elder abuse.
Item 6: Requested Withholding Percentage
Item 6 lets the applicant request a specific withholding percentage above the 25% federal floor. The applicant can request up to 100% of disposable earnings, subject to the debtor’s right to claim hardship exemptions under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.051. Most attorneys request 50% as a starting point because it doubles the federal rate without triggering automatic hardship review.
The consequence of requesting too high a percentage is an immediate claim of exemption and a hearing that delays collection by 60 to 90 days. A real-world example: A San Diego firm requested 100% withholding; the debtor filed Form WG-006 Claim of Exemption, and the court reduced the rate to 35% after a hearing on the debtor’s family expenses.
A common mistake is failing to support the requested percentage with a declaration explaining why the elder victim needs the money quickly, such as ongoing medical costs or a depleted estate.
Item 7: Statement Regarding Prior Withholding Orders
Item 7 asks whether any other earnings withholding order is currently in effect against the debtor. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.023, only one ordinary garnishment runs at a time, but child support, spousal support, and elder abuse orders take priority. The applicant must disclose any known prior order so the levying officer can sequence them correctly.
The consequence of false disclosure is a contempt finding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1209. A real-world example: A creditor failed to disclose an active child support garnishment; the court vacated the EJ-152 order and required the creditor to pay the debtor’s attorney’s fees.
A common misconception is that elder abuse orders take last place. They do not. Under § 706.109, elder abuse orders take priority over ordinary creditor garnishments, though child support remains first under Family Code section 5246.
Item 8: Levying Officer Information
Item 8 identifies the levying officer who will serve the order on the employer. In most California counties, this is the sheriff’s civil division; in a few counties it is a registered process server acting under Code of Civil Procedure section 699.080. The applicant lists the levying officer’s name, address, and county.
The consequence of choosing the wrong levying officer is rejected service. Each county has its own civil division; the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s civil bureau handles LA County, while the San Francisco Sheriff’s civil division handles San Francisco. A real-world example: A creditor sent the order to the LA Sheriff for service on an Orange County employer; the LA Sheriff returned the order unserved and the creditor lost six weeks.
A common mistake is paying the levying officer fee out of order. The statewide fee schedule requires fees to accompany the order, not the application.
Item 9: Attachments
Item 9 lists the required attachments. At a minimum, attach a certified copy of the judgment, a certified copy of any post-judgment financial abuse order, a current MC-012 if costs are claimed, and a declaration supporting the requested withholding percentage. Optional attachments include the Secretary of State business record confirming the employer’s legal name and any name change order for the debtor.
The consequence of missing attachments is rejection without prejudice. A real-world example: Carlos forgot to attach the certified judgment; the clerk rejected the filing and Carlos paid an additional $25 certified copy fee to refile.
A common misconception is that conformed copies suffice. They do not. The clerk requires certified copies bearing the court seal under Government Code section 70626.
Item 10: Verification and Signature
Item 10 is the verification under penalty of perjury under the laws of California, signed by the applicant or attorney. The signature date must be within 30 days of filing under common clerk practice. The verification language tracks Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5.
The consequence of a false verification is criminal perjury under Penal Code section 118 and civil sanctions. A real-world example: An attorney signed an EJ-152 verification stating the debtor owed $200,000 when only $150,000 was owed after a partial payment; the State Bar opened a disciplinary investigation.
A common mistake is using an electronic signature without complying with California Rules of Court rule 2.257. E-signatures are allowed but the original wet-ink copy must be retained.
Three Common Scenarios with Worked Examples
The fastest way to understand EJ-152 is to walk through three real fact patterns drawn from California elder abuse litigation. Each one shows what the applicant does and what the court does next.
Scenario 1: Caregiver Theft of Bank Accounts
| Creditor’s Step | Court’s Response |
|---|---|
| Maria sues her brother Tom, the paid caregiver who drained their 82-year-old father’s accounts of $250,000, and obtains a jury verdict that includes a § 15610.30 financial abuse finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30. | Court enters judgment on Form JUD-100 with the financial abuse finding. |
| Maria files EJ-152 listing Tom as debtor, his employer (a moving company), and requests 50% withholding under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.109. | Clerk issues Form WG-035 the next business day. |
| Maria delivers WG-035 to the LA County Sheriff’s civil bureau with the statewide fee schedule payment. | Sheriff serves the employer within 10 days. |
Scenario 2: Power-of-Attorney Abuse with Default Judgment
| Creditor’s Step | Court’s Response |
|---|---|
| David, the conservator of his uncle, sues a former POA agent who transferred $400,000 in real estate, and the agent defaults. David requests a default judgment with financial abuse findings under Code of Civil Procedure section 585. | Court enters default judgment with express § 15610.30 finding. |
| David files EJ-152 with the certified default judgment attached as Exhibit A. | Clerk issues WG-035 directing 50% withholding. |
| The agent files Form WG-006 claim of exemption claiming hardship. | Court reduces withholding to 35% after hearing. |
Scenario 3: Online Romance Scam Targeting a Dependent Adult
| Creditor’s Step | Court’s Response |
|---|---|
| Linda, conservator of her 55-year-old brother (a dependent adult under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.23), sues an in-state romance scammer for $75,000 and obtains judgment with a § 15610.30 finding. | Court enters judgment with explicit dependent adult and financial abuse findings. |
| Linda files EJ-152 listing the scammer’s tech employer and requests 100% withholding, attaching a declaration about her brother’s depleted disability funds. | Clerk issues WG-035 at 100%. |
| Scammer files claim of exemption; Linda opposes with brother’s medical bills. | Court holds rate at 60% after balancing hardship and victim’s need. |
Named-Person Examples in Practice
To anchor abstract rules, three named examples illustrate how EJ-152 works across different fact patterns.
Example A: Maria and the Caregiver Brother
Maria is a 55-year-old daughter who discovered her brother Tom systematically wrote checks from their father’s account. After a six-day jury trial, Maria obtained a $250,000 verdict that included a special verdict question on financial abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30. Maria’s lawyer filed EJ-152 within 30 days of judgment, requested 50% withholding, and collected $1,800 per month from Tom’s paycheck at the moving company. The full judgment will be paid in just over 11 years, well within the 10-year renewal window of CCP § 683.020 when Maria files a timely renewal.
Example B: David and the POA Agent
David, the court-appointed conservator for his uncle Ernest under Probate Code section 1820, sued a former power-of-attorney agent who transferred Ernest’s home into a sham LLC. The agent defaulted, and David obtained a judgment for $400,000 with explicit financial abuse findings entered by Probate Code section 859 double damages. David’s EJ-152 captured 50% of the agent’s wages at her dental office and recovered $32,000 in the first year alone.
Example C: Linda and the Romance Scammer
Linda is the conservator of her brother Marcus, a 55-year-old dependent adult with traumatic brain injury. After Marcus wired $75,000 to an in-state romance scammer, Linda sued in San Francisco Superior Court and obtained a default judgment with both a dependent adult finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.23 and a financial abuse finding. Linda’s EJ-152 application requested 100% withholding; the court compromised at 60%, which still funds Marcus’s care home.
Mistakes to Avoid
Seven recurring errors derail California elder abuse wage garnishments. Each one is preventable.
- Filing EJ-152 without a financial abuse finding in the underlying judgment violates Code of Civil Procedure section 706.109 and triggers immediate rejection.
- Using a trade name instead of the employer’s Secretary of State legal name wastes the sheriff’s service fee.
- Omitting the debtor’s Social Security number prevents payroll matching and causes the employer to reject the order under CCP § 706.108.
- Inflating the total in item 4 by adding unawarded attorney’s fees risks CCP § 128.7 sanctions.
- Filing in the wrong county violates CCP § 697.510 and forces refiling in the issuing court.
- Failing to attach a certified judgment under Government Code § 70626 leads to clerk rejection without prejudice.
- Skipping the supporting declaration for high withholding percentages invites a near-certain claim of exemption and a hearing under CCP § 706.051.
Comparing EJ-152 with Standard Wage Garnishment
The differences between EJ-152 and the ordinary Form WG-001 application are substantial.
| Feature | EJ-152 (Elder Abuse) | WG-001 (Standard) |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory basis is CCP § 706.109 | Yes | No |
| Maximum withholding | Up to 100% of non-exempt disposable earnings | 25% under CCP § 706.050 |
| Financial abuse finding required | Yes, under WIC § 15610.30 | No |
| Priority over other ordinary garnishments | Yes, second only to support orders | No |
| Confidential filing | Yes, under CCP § 706.108 | Partially |
| Resulting order form | WG-035 | WG-002 |
Federal Law Backdrop
Federal law sets a floor, not a ceiling, on wage garnishment protection. The Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673, caps ordinary garnishments at 25% of disposable earnings or the amount by which weekly disposable earnings exceed 30 times the federal minimum wage. The Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division enforces the cap and prohibits employer retaliation under 15 U.S.C. § 1674.
The CCPA carves out higher caps for child support, alimony, federal tax debt, and bankruptcy. California’s elder abuse statute uses the carveout for any debt due for state taxes analogy and the federalism principle in Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974) to authorize higher state withholding for elder abuse judgments. The consequence for employers is that they must comply with whichever order results in the higher withholding when both federal and state rules apply.
A common misconception is that the employer can refuse the high California rate based on federal law. The employer cannot. As the DOL Field Operations Handbook chapter 16 explains, federal CCPA caps do not preempt state garnishment laws that protect a higher percentage of earnings or that set higher caps for special creditor classes.
Key Entities You Will Encounter
Five categories of entities surface when filing EJ-152.
- The Judicial Council of California drafts the form and updates it under California Rules of Court rule 10.5.
- The Superior Court clerk in the issuing county receives the application and issues Form WG-035.
- The county sheriff’s civil division, such as the Alameda County Sheriff civil unit, serves the order on the employer.
- The employer’s payroll administrator complies under CCP § 706.025 by withholding and remitting funds.
- The Department of Justice Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse tracks elder abuse cases and publishes annual data.
Do’s and Don’ts
Do follow these five practices.
- Do attach a certified judgment with the financial abuse finding clearly visible because Government Code § 70626 requires certified copies for enforcement.
- Do verify the employer’s legal name through the California Secretary of State business search because trade names cause service rejection.
- Do file an updated Memorandum of Costs MC-012 before EJ-152 because costs not previously memorialized cannot be recovered.
- Do request a specific withholding percentage in item 6 and support it with a declaration because the court will otherwise default to 25%.
- Do calendar the 10-year renewal deadline under CCP § 683.020 because expired judgments cannot be enforced.
Don’t make these five mistakes.
- Don’t file EJ-152 without checking that the underlying judgment names financial abuse under WIC § 15610.30 because clerks reject otherwise.
- Don’t list a P.O. box for the employer because CCP § 706.101 requires a physical address.
- Don’t use an electronic signature without complying with California Rules of Court rule 2.257 because nonconforming signatures invalidate the verification.
- Don’t add unawarded attorney’s fees to item 4 because CCP § 128.7 sanctions are likely.
- Don’t request 100% withholding without documentation of victim hardship because the court will reduce the rate after a WG-006 claim of exemption hearing.
Pros and Cons of Using EJ-152
The form has clear strengths and limits.
Pros:
- Captures up to 100% of non-exempt disposable earnings under CCP § 706.109, far exceeding the 25% federal cap.
- Provides confidential filing under CCP § 706.108, shielding the elder victim’s identity.
- Takes priority over ordinary creditor garnishments under CCP § 706.023.
- Issues without a noticed motion because the clerk handles it ministerially under California Rules of Court rule 1.31.
- Stacks with other postjudgment remedies, including debtor examinations under CCP § 708.110 and bank levies under CCP § 700.140.
Cons:
- Requires an explicit financial abuse finding under WIC § 15610.30 that many trial verdicts omit.
- Does not reach independent contractors because wage garnishment requires an employer-employee relationship.
- Triggers fast claim-of-exemption practice under WG-006 when high percentages are requested.
- Cannot be used while the debtor is in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.
- Loses force after the 10-year renewal deadline of CCP § 683.020 without timely renewal.
Coordinating EJ-152 with WG-035 and the Levying Officer
Filing EJ-152 is only step one. After the clerk issues Form WG-035, the creditor must deliver it to the county sheriff or another levying officer with the statewide civil fee. The sheriff serves the employer with the WG-035 packet, including Form WG-003 employer’s instructions and Form WG-005 employee instructions.
The employer must begin withholding within 10 days of service under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.022. The consequence for an employer that ignores the order is direct liability for the unwithheld amount under Code of Civil Procedure section 706.154. A real-world example: A Bay Area tech startup ignored a WG-035 issued from EJ-152, and the court entered judgment against the employer for $48,000 in missed withholding plus $7,500 in attorney’s fees.
A common misconception is that the order garnishes only future wages. It does not. The order also reaches accrued but unpaid wages owed at the moment of service, and the employer must withhold from the next pay cycle.
Court Rulings That Shape EJ-152 Practice
Three California appellate decisions guide EJ-152 practice. In Das v. Bauer, 245 Cal.App.4th 1196 (2016), the Court of Appeal confirmed that financial abuse findings must be express and supported by substantial evidence. In Bonfigli v. Strachan, 192 Cal.App.4th 1302 (2011), the court held that double damages under Probate Code § 859 may serve as the financial abuse finding required for EJ-152 when the order tracks WIC § 15610.30 language.
In Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP, 202 Cal.App.4th 522 (2011), the court limited financial abuse to conduct involving wrongful taking, narrowing the universe of eligible judgments. The consequence for practitioners is that not every elder fraud verdict supports EJ-152. A real-world example: A San Bernardino plaintiff held a securities fraud verdict against an adviser; under Stebley, the trial court refused to amend the judgment to add a financial abuse finding because the conduct was misrepresentation rather than wrongful taking.
A common misconception is that consumer fraud statutes such as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1770, automatically supply the finding. They do not. The court must still identify the WIC § 15610.30 elements.
State Nuances by County
Although EJ-152 is a statewide form, county clerks apply local rules. The Los Angeles Superior Court self-help center accepts EJ-152 by mail or e-file through the eFileCalifornia portal. The San Francisco Superior Court civil division requires filings to be lodged in Department 514 with the writs unit.
The Orange County Superior Court enforcement clerk requires a printed face sheet beneath the EJ-152 because the form is sealed under CCP § 706.108. The consequence of missing local face sheets is rejection without prejudice.
A real-world example: A creditor filed EJ-152 in Orange County without the local face sheet; the clerk rejected the filing, and the creditor lost two weeks while reformatting under local rule.
FAQs
Is Form EJ-152 mandatory for elder abuse wage garnishments in California?
Yes. EJ-152 is a mandatory Judicial Council form under California Rules of Court rule 1.31, and you cannot use a substitute pleading to invoke the CCP § 706.109 elder abuse withholding remedy.
Can I file EJ-152 without a financial abuse finding in my judgment?
No. The application requires a Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30 finding in the judgment or in a post-judgment order; without it, the clerk rejects EJ-152.
Does EJ-152 let me garnish 100% of the debtor’s wages?
Yes. CCP § 706.109 allows up to 100% withholding of non-exempt disposable earnings, although debtors can claim hardship under CCP § 706.051 to reduce the rate.
Is EJ-152 confidential when I file it?
Yes. CCP § 706.108 seals the application from public view because it discloses the debtor’s Social Security number and home address.
Can EJ-152 reach independent contractors?
No. Wage garnishment requires an employer-employee relationship under CCP § 706.011, so 1099 contractors must be reached through bank levies or third-party levies on accounts receivable.
Does federal law preempt California’s higher withholding rate?
No. The Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673, sets a floor and the DOL Wage and Hour Division confirms states may authorize higher caps for special judgments.
Can I use EJ-152 against a debtor in bankruptcy?
No. The 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic stay halts wage garnishment until the bankruptcy court grants relief or the discharge issues, except for non-dischargeable elder abuse claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523.
Does EJ-152 take priority over a child support garnishment?
No. Child support orders take first priority under Family Code § 5246, although EJ-152 garnishments outrank ordinary creditor orders.
Can the debtor file a claim of exemption against EJ-152?
Yes. The debtor may file Form WG-006 within 10 days under CCP § 706.105, and the court holds a hearing to balance hardship against the elder victim’s needs.
Does EJ-152 expire?
Yes. The underlying judgment expires after 10 years under CCP § 683.020 unless renewed, which automatically ends any active EJ-152 garnishment.
Can I file EJ-152 in a county different from where I obtained the judgment?
No. CCP § 697.510 requires the application to be filed in the issuing court, even if the debtor now lives or works elsewhere.
Does EJ-152 require a hearing before issuance?
No. The clerk issues Form WG-035 ministerially under California Rules of Court rule 1.31, without a noticed motion, as long as the application is complete.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form EA-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form EJ-130 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form EJ-160 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form EJ-165 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form EJ-185 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form EJ-195 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs