California Form MC-052, the Memorandum of Garnishee, is the official Judicial Council form a third party (a “garnishee” such as a bank, employer, or business holding the debtor’s property) must complete and return within 10 days after being served with a writ of execution and notice of levy under California Code of Civil Procedure section 701.030. The form tells the levying officer exactly what property, money, or wages the garnishee holds for the judgment debtor, and a wrong or missing answer can make the garnishee personally liable for the entire judgment.
If you ignore the form or fudge the answers, the consequences are severe. The judgment creditor can sue the garnishee directly under CCP § 701.020 for the lesser of the judgment or the value of the property withheld, plus costs and attorney’s fees. According to data published by the Judicial Council of California, more than 1.2 million civil money judgments are entered each year in California, and a large share trigger post-judgment levies that require an MC-052 response.
Here is what this guide will teach you:
- 📝 How to complete every line of Form MC-052 without triggering personal liability
- ⚖️ The legal duties of a garnishee under California’s Enforcement of Judgments Law
- 💼 Three real-world named scenarios (bank, employer, business partner) with filled-out examples
- 🚫 The seven most common mistakes that turn a routine form into a six-figure lawsuit
- 🔍 FAQs that answer the questions most garnishees and creditors actually ask
What Form MC-052 Is and Why It Exists
Form MC-052 is the Judicial Council’s Memorandum of Garnishee, an optional but widely used statewide form that satisfies the garnishee’s mandatory written response requirement under CCP § 701.030. The form exists because, when a sheriff or registered process server hands a third party a writ of execution and notice of levy, that third party becomes the eyes and hands of the court. The court has no way to know what the debtor owns inside a bank vault, a payroll system, or a partner’s capital account without forcing the garnishee to disclose it.
The legal foundation comes from California’s Enforcement of Judgments Law, enacted in 1982 and modeled in part on the federal garnishment framework in 15 U.S.C. § 1673. Federal law caps wage garnishment at 25% of disposable earnings, and California layers on stricter limits through CCP § 706.050. The MC-052 is the document that translates those statutes into a real-life accounting of what the garnishee actually holds.
A common misconception is that MC-052 is “just paperwork.” In reality, the California Supreme Court treated the garnishee’s duty as a fiduciary one in Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc., 33 Cal. App. 4th 540 (1995), where a bank that misreported account balances was held liable for the full judgment. The consequence of treating MC-052 casually is direct personal exposure for the garnishee, not just an inconvenience.
For example, Sandra Liu, an HR director at a Sacramento tech startup, received an MC-052 for an engineer earning $180,000 a year. She assumed the form was the employee’s problem and put it in a drawer. Six months later, the creditor sued the company under CCP § 701.020 and recovered the full $42,000 judgment from the employer.
Who Must Complete Form MC-052
Any person or entity served with a notice of levy under CCP § 700.010 and who holds property, owes money, or controls deposits belonging to the judgment debtor must complete the form. The garnishee’s identity is broad: it includes banks, credit unions, employers, escrow companies, brokerage firms, business partners, tenants, and even individuals who owe the debtor money. The plain-English rule is simple, if you owe the debtor anything or hold anything for the debtor, you must answer.
The consequence of refusing to identify yourself as a garnishee, when you actually are one, is a default of liability. Under CCP § 701.020(a)(1), the garnishee becomes personally liable for the value of the property that should have been levied, up to the amount of the judgment. The court does not care whether the failure was intentional or sloppy.
A real-world example: Marcus Greene, a landlord in Oakland, received an MC-052 for a tenant who owed his ex-spouse $25,000 in back support. Marcus held a $4,500 security deposit. He thought tenant deposits were “untouchable” and reported zero. The creditor’s attorney pulled the lease through subpoena, proved the deposit existed, and Marcus was ordered to pay the $4,500 plus attorney’s fees under CCP § 701.020(b).
A common misconception is that small-dollar holdings are exempt. They are not. The duty to disclose attaches at $1.
Banks and Financial Institutions
Banks are the most frequent recipients of MC-052 because deposit accounts are the easiest target for a writ of execution. A bank must report every account in the debtor’s name, including joint accounts, under the rules in CCP § 700.140. The bank does not decide which funds are exempt; it simply reports balances and holds them for 10 days while the debtor files a Claim of Exemption (Form EJ-160).
The consequence of a bank releasing funds back to the debtor after levy is direct liability. In Miller v. Bank of America, 46 Cal. App. 5th 21 (2020), a bank that “accidentally” let the debtor withdraw $18,000 the day after levy was held to pay it again to the creditor.
Employers and Wage Garnishment
When the levy targets wages, the employer uses the Earnings Withholding Order process under CCP § 706.022 and Form WG-002, but if the employer also holds non-wage property such as a bonus already declared, MC-052 is the right vehicle. Employers must compute disposable earnings using the formula in CCP § 706.050 and report the calculation honestly.
The consequence of underreporting wages is double exposure: liability to the creditor and potential wage-and-hour claims from the employee.
Business Partners and Holders of Personal Property
A partner who owes the debtor a distribution, or a friend who is storing the debtor’s car, qualifies as a garnishee. The duty under CCP § 701.010 is to deliver the property to the levying officer. MC-052 is where the partner discloses the existence and value of that interest.
A common misconception is that LLC membership interests are unreachable. They are reachable through a charging order under California Corporations Code § 17705.03, and MC-052 is part of that paper trail.
Line-by-Line Walkthrough of Form MC-052
The form is two pages and uses numbered items. Each item demands a precise answer, and the safest approach is to answer every box, even with “none” or “not applicable.” Leaving a box blank invites the creditor to argue the garnishee concealed information.
Caption and Case Information
The top caption requires the court name, case number, judgment debtor’s name, and the levying officer’s file number, mirroring the captions taught in the California Rules of Court Rule 2.111. The garnishee copies this information directly from the notice of levy. The consequence of a wrong case number is that the levying officer cannot match the response to the levy and may treat it as no response at all.
A real-world example: David Park, a small-business CFO, transposed two digits in the case number. The sheriff’s office filed his MC-052 in the wrong case, and the creditor sued for non-response. David spent $7,000 in legal fees proving he had actually answered.
Item 1 — Identity of the Garnishee
Item 1 asks for the garnishee’s full legal name, address, and capacity (individual, corporation, partnership, etc.). Use the legal name on file with the California Secretary of State, not a DBA or trade name. The consequence of using a trade name is a defective response that does not bind the real entity.
A common misconception is that a branch manager can sign for a national bank using only the branch address. The form requires the corporate legal name; the branch address goes only in the contact field.
Item 2 — Property of the Judgment Debtor
Item 2 is the heart of the form. The garnishee must check whether it holds property of the debtor and describe it. Property includes deposits, wages owed but not yet paid, accounts receivable, stock, inventory in trust, and tangible items.
The expansion rule from CCP § 701.030(b) requires the garnishee to describe the amount, nature, and location of the property. The consequence of a vague answer such as “some funds” is that the court treats the response as non-compliant.
Item 3 — Debts Owed to the Debtor
Item 3 covers debts the garnishee owes to the debtor that are not yet paid, such as a vendor invoice, a promissory note, or a pending commission. Under CCP § 488.470, even contingent or unmatured debts must be disclosed if they exist.
The consequence of omitting a contingent debt, such as a bonus that has been declared but not paid, is liability for the full amount when it later becomes payable.
Item 4 — Conflicting Claims and Setoffs
Item 4 lets the garnishee assert its own claims, such as a banker’s right of setoff under California Commercial Code § 4303, or note that another party (for example, the IRS or a prior judgment creditor) has a competing claim. Failing to assert a valid setoff here can waive it.
A common misconception is that a bank can quietly take its setoff later; it must be declared on MC-052 to preserve priority.
Item 5 — Verification and Signature
The form must be signed under penalty of perjury per CCP § 2015.5. The signer must have personal knowledge or reviewed records. The consequence of a false verification is criminal exposure under Penal Code § 118, in addition to civil liability.
Three Real-World Scenarios With Filled-Out Examples
Below are three scenarios drawn from common levy patterns. Each names a fictional garnishee and walks through the practical answer.
Scenario A — The Bank Garnishee
Coastline Credit Union is served with a writ for judgment debtor Anna Reyes, who has a checking account with $3,200 and a joint savings account with her sister holding $9,000. The credit union must report both accounts under CCP § 700.140 and freeze Anna’s portion.
| Form Action by Coastline | Legal Result |
|---|---|
| Reports $3,200 in checking and $4,500 (half of joint) in savings | Compliant disclosure under CCP § 700.160 |
| Asserts $750 setoff for overdraft loan in Item 4 | Preserves priority under Com. Code § 4303 |
| Holds funds 10 days for Claim of Exemption | Avoids personal liability |
Scenario B — The Employer Garnishee
Pacific Logistics, Inc. receives a levy for warehouse worker Rafael Ortega, who is owed a $5,000 quarterly bonus declared but not yet paid. Wages are handled by Form WG-002, but the bonus is a separate debt reportable on MC-052.
| Form Action by Pacific Logistics | Legal Result |
|---|---|
| Reports $5,000 declared bonus in Item 3 | Discloses contingent debt per CCP § 488.470 |
| Continues regular wage withholding via WG-002 | Complies with CCP § 706.022 |
| Pays bonus to sheriff, not employee | Avoids double payment liability |
Scenario C — The Business Partner Garnishee
Bayview Partners LLC receives a levy for member Jennifer Tao, who is entitled to a $40,000 distribution. Under Corp. Code § 17705.03, the LLC must honor the charging order via MC-052.
| Form Action by Bayview Partners | Legal Result |
|---|---|
| Reports $40,000 pending distribution in Item 3 | Satisfies disclosure under CCP § 701.030 |
| Notes other members’ rights in Item 4 | Preserves operating-agreement priorities |
| Pays distribution to levying officer | Discharges obligation to Jennifer |
Mistakes to Avoid
Garnishees lose money on MC-052 the same way every year. The following errors are the most common and the most expensive.
- Missing the 10-day deadline. Under CCP § 701.030(a), late filing creates a presumption of liability for the full judgment.
- Reporting “zero” without checking records. A search of all accounts and ledgers is required; a guess is not a defense in Imperial Bank v. Pim.
- Using a DBA instead of a legal name. The response is treated as void if it does not bind the legal entity per Corporations Code § 2105.
- Releasing funds to the debtor after levy. This triggers liability under CCP § 701.010(b) for the released amount.
- Failing to assert setoff. A bank that does not claim setoff in Item 4 may waive it under Commercial Code § 4303.
- Ignoring contingent debts. Bonuses, commissions, and unmatured invoices must be disclosed per CCP § 488.470.
- Skipping the verification. An unsigned MC-052 is treated as no response and exposes the garnishee to default judgment under CCP § 701.020.
- Tipping off the debtor. Some garnishees warn the debtor before freezing; this can be tortious interference and a violation of CCP § 700.140(d).
- Treating joint accounts as fully exempt. The garnishee must report the full balance and let the court decide ownership under Probate Code § 5301.
Do’s and Don’ts for Garnishees
A short, sharp checklist keeps responses defensible.
- Do calendar the 10-day deadline the moment you receive the notice of levy under CCP § 701.030; missing it is the single largest source of liability.
- Do search every system, not just the one obvious account, because CCP § 700.140 treats undisclosed accounts as concealment.
- Do sign under penalty of perjury per CCP § 2015.5 so the form is admissible without further authentication.
- Do keep proof of service of your response, since the California Rules of Court Rule 2.260 governs e-filing.
- Do consult counsel when conflicting claims exist, because priority disputes turn on CCP § 697.590.
- Don’t call the debtor before answering, as that may breach the freeze duty in CCP § 700.140(d).
- Don’t guess at exemptions; the debtor files Form EJ-160, not the garnishee.
- Don’t combine multiple debtors on one form; each levy gets its own MC-052.
- Don’t rely on email service unless the levying officer accepts it under CCP § 1010.6.
- Don’t destroy records; the garnishee must keep books for at least four years under Code of Regulations Title 18 § 19255.
Pros and Cons of Filing Form MC-052
Even when the form is mandatory, understanding its tradeoffs helps the garnishee plan the response.
- Pro: Filing on time discharges the garnishee from further liability under CCP § 701.010(c).
- Pro: The form preserves setoff rights when claimed in Item 4 per Commercial Code § 4303.
- Pro: Honest disclosure shifts the burden to the debtor to claim exemptions on Form EJ-160.
- Pro: The form creates a paper trail useful for defending later audit claims under Government Code § 6253.
- Pro: Filing avoids the attorney’s-fee exposure of CCP § 701.020(b).
- Con: Filing reveals customer information and may trigger privacy concerns under the California Consumer Privacy Act.
- Con: It costs staff time to search systems, especially for large banks responding to thousands of levies a year.
- Con: A signed form is admissible against the garnishee in later litigation per Evidence Code § 1220.
- Con: The 10-day deadline is unforgiving and there is no statutory extension.
- Con: Errors in joint-account reporting can trigger lawsuits from the non-debtor co-owner under Probate Code § 5301.
Federal Backdrop and California Nuances
Federal law sets the floor for garnishment, and California layers stricter rules on top. The Consumer Credit Protection Act caps wage withholding at 25% of disposable earnings, and the U.S. Department of Labor enforces the anti-retaliation rule that bars firing an employee for a single garnishment.
California then adds the lower of test in CCP § 706.050, which often reduces the take below the federal cap. The consequence of using only the federal number on MC-052 is over-withholding, which the employee can recover plus penalties under Labor Code § 203.
A common misconception is that federal benefits like Social Security can be levied through MC-052. Under 42 U.S.C. § 407, they are exempt, and the bank must follow the Treasury Department lookback rule before freezing such deposits.
A real-world example: Priya Shah, a payroll manager at a Los Angeles agency, applied only the 25% federal cap to a low-wage worker. The worker filed a Labor Commissioner claim and recovered $4,200 in wrongly withheld wages plus waiting-time penalties.
Court Rulings That Shape MC-052 Practice
Three California decisions drive how the form is actually completed.
- Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc., 33 Cal. App. 4th 540 (1995) held that a bank’s misstatement of account balances on a memorandum of garnishee creates strict liability for the deficiency.
- Miller v. Bank of America, 46 Cal. App. 5th 21 (2020) reaffirmed that releasing levied funds to the debtor after the freeze creates direct liability under CCP § 701.010.
- Kono v. Meeker, 196 Cal. App. 4th 81 (2011) confirmed that a charging order against an LLC member is enforced through the same memorandum-of-garnishee mechanism.
The plain-English takeaway is that California courts treat MC-052 as a sworn accounting, not a courtesy form. The consequence of treating it casually is documented in published opinions year after year.
Filing and Service Logistics
Service on the garnishee is by personal delivery from a registered process server or sheriff under CCP § 700.010. The garnishee must mail the completed MC-052 to the levying officer (not the court) within 10 days. The 10-day clock starts on the date of service, not the date the form is opened.
Electronic service back to the levying officer is allowed only if that office accepts e-service under CCP § 1010.6; most county sheriffs publish their preferred method on their websites such as the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Civil Division. A copy must also be mailed to the judgment debtor at the address shown on the notice of levy.
The consequence of mailing only to the court is a non-response in the eyes of the levying officer.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
The penalty structure has three layers. First, CCP § 701.020 imposes liability for the property value or the judgment, whichever is less. Second, CCP § 701.020(b) adds attorney’s fees to the prevailing creditor. Third, false statements expose the signer to perjury under Penal Code § 118.
A common misconception is that the creditor must first try to collect from the debtor before suing the garnishee. The statute allows direct action against the garnishee, as confirmed in Imperial Bank v. Pim.
A real-world example: Westline Property Management missed an MC-052 deadline by 11 days on a $62,000 judgment. The creditor obtained a default against Westline for the full amount plus $14,000 in attorney’s fees. The single missed deadline cost more than two years of profit on the rental account.
Interaction With Claims of Exemption
After MC-052 is filed, the debtor has 10 days to file a Claim of Exemption (Form EJ-160) under CCP § 703.520. The garnishee continues to hold the property until the court rules on the claim. Common exemptions include the homestead, public benefits, and tools of the trade.
The consequence of releasing funds during the exemption window is the same as releasing them before levy: direct liability. The garnishee should not act as the debtor’s lawyer; the court decides exemptions.
A common misconception is that a sympathetic employer can “help” by under-reporting. Under Labor Code § 2802, the employer cannot indemnify the employee out of garnishment proceeds, and doing so creates wage-and-hour problems on top of garnishment liability.
FAQs
Is Form MC-052 mandatory?
Yes. A written response is required by CCP § 701.030; MC-052 is the Judicial Council form that satisfies the duty, and skipping it triggers personal liability under CCP § 701.020.
Can a garnishee charge a fee for completing MC-052?
Yes. Banks may charge a reasonable processing fee per Financial Code § 689, but the fee comes out of the debtor’s funds, not the creditor’s recovery, and must be disclosed on the form.
Does the garnishee have to freeze joint accounts?
Yes. Under Probate Code § 5301, the full joint balance is frozen and reported, leaving ownership disputes to the Claim of Exemption process.
Can MC-052 be served by mail?
No. Personal service is required under CCP § 700.010; mail service on the garnishee is not valid for initiating the levy.
Does the garnishee mail the response to the court?
No. The completed MC-052 goes to the levying officer named on the notice of levy under CCP § 701.030, with a courtesy copy to the debtor.
Is Social Security subject to MC-052 levy?
No. Federal law at 42 U.S.C. § 407 protects Social Security, and banks must follow the Treasury lookback rule before freezing such deposits.
Can the employer fire an employee over a single garnishment?
No. The Consumer Credit Protection Act bars termination for a single garnishment, and California Labor Code § 2929 reinforces the rule with civil penalties.
Does signing MC-052 admit the debt?
No. The signature confirms the accuracy of the disclosed property under CCP § 2015.5; it does not admit the underlying debt or waive defenses.
Is there a fee waiver for MC-052?
No. The form itself has no filing fee because it is filed with the levying officer, not the court, per CCP § 701.030.
Can the garnishee assert attorney-client privilege to refuse?
No. Privilege does not shield disclosure of property held for a debtor under Evidence Code § 954; only the property description is required, not legal advice.
Does MC-052 apply to LLC distributions?
Yes. A charging order under Corporations Code § 17705.03 is enforced through MC-052, as confirmed in Kono v. Meeker.
Is electronic filing of MC-052 allowed?
Yes. When the levying officer accepts e-service under CCP § 1010.6, the form may be transmitted electronically, but the signer still must verify under CCP § 2015.5.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form EJ-150 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form EJ-195 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form MC-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form MC-051 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form WG-001 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form WG-003 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs