California Legal Brief

The Rule of Lu v. Greely is that a judgment creditor cannot levy upon a third party's separate deposit accounts by claiming the account holder is the judgment debtor's spouse when the marriage is void ab initio due to bigamy, under circumstances where the affidavit of spousal relationship supporting the notice of levy is based on a bigamous marriage that was illegal and void from inception.

Appeal from judgment after post-judgment motion proceedings in Superior Court, San Diego County.

Defendant Appellant was Jenny Ying Lin Lu — the bigamously married party who held separate deposit accounts that were levied upon based on an affidavit claiming she was Albert's spouse.

Plaintiff Respondent was Patricia L. Greely — the judgment creditor who obtained divorce judgment against Albert and sought to enforce it through levy on Jenny's accounts.

The suit sounded in enforcement of a family law judgment. Jenny challenged the validity of levy notices on her separately held deposit accounts after her bigamous marriage was annulled.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Patricia divorced Albert in 2023 with judgment requiring him to pay $1.4 million in spousal support arrears and equalization payments. Meanwhile, Albert had bigamously married Jenny in 2020 while still married to Patricia. When Albert failed to pay, Patricia obtained writ of execution and served notices of levy on financial institutions, levying $380,000+ from Jenny's separate accounts based on affidavit claiming Jenny was Albert's spouse under Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160(b)(2). Jenny had the marriage annulled on bigamy grounds and challenged the levies.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Jenny's motion to quash the notices of levy, ruling that "the annulment of the marriage [did not] undermine the basis for the lev[ies] or invalidate [them]."

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether notices of levy on a third party's separate deposit accounts are valid when supported by an affidavit of spousal relationship based on a bigamous marriage that is void ab initio.

The Appellate Court held that notices of levy were defective because they were based on an affidavit claiming a spousal relationship from a bigamous marriage that was void from inception, requiring Patricia to obtain a court order before levying on Jenny's separately held accounts and to return all improperly levied funds.

The case is inapplicable when the marriage relationship is valid or voidable (rather than void), when accounts are held jointly with the judgment debtor, when a proper court order authorizing levy has been obtained, or when the affidavit of spousal relationship is factually accurate.

The case leaves open whether funds in Jenny's accounts might be subject to levy based on quasi-marital property theories, fraudulent conveyance claims, or other equitable considerations that would require Patricia to first obtain a court order establishing such grounds.