Friday, May 22, 2026
Page 1
Judge Erred in Upholding Account Levy That Was Supported by Invalid Marriage—C.A.
Opinion Says Error to Rule That Annulment Did Not Invalidate Seizure of Funds in Alleged Wife’s Separate Accounts Under Law Allowing Creditor Access Based on Affidavit of Relationship
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge erred in denying a woman’s challenge to levies imposed on her separate bank accounts based on her alleged marriage to the judgment debtor where the union was later formally dissolved after it was shown that the “husband” was already married.
At issue is a provision of the Enforcement of Judgments Law (“ELJ”), found at Code of Civil Procedure §680.010 et seq., that allows accounts held in the name of the “judgment debtor’s spouse” to be levied upon without a court order if “an affidavit is delivered to the financial institution…showing that person is the judgment debtor’s spouse.”
Based on that provision, more than $380,000 from separate savings and retirement accounts held by Jenny Ying Lin Lu was swept into levy proceedings due to a debt owed by her purported spouse, Albert Z. Greeley, to an ex-wife, Patricia L. Greely, to whom he was still married at the time of the second ceremony.
Justice Truc T. Do authored Wednesday’s opinion, joined in by Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and Justice Jose S. Castillo. She declared:
“The EJL does not set forth a statutory procedure for deposit account holders to move to quash a notice of levy or challenge the affidavit of spousal relationship that supports it. We conclude the trial court correctly entertained [Lu’s] challenge to the notices of levy on her separate accounts and the supporting affidavit under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 187 and its inherent powers. But the court erred when it allowed the levies to stand in the face of a judgment annulling [Lu] and Albert’s marriage on grounds of bigamy.”
Two-Fold Result
Do added:
“The effect of our holding is twofold. First, Patricia must return the money she obtained from the invalid levies on [Lu’s] accounts. Second, if Patricia still seeks to levy on [Lu’s] accounts, she must treat her as the third party she is and first obtain a court order directing that monies in the accounts are properly subject to levy for payment of Albert’s debt. We do not address Patricia’s premature contentions that the funds in [Lu’s] accounts are co-mingled quasi-marital property, that they were fraudulently conveyed to her by Albert, or that they are subject to levy based on equitable considerations.”
Patricia and Albert Greely were married in 1981, and their divorce became final on May 18, 2023. In the judgment of dissolution, he was ordered to pay $6,000 in monthly spousal support, $762,922.83 in support arrears, and a $652,984 equalization payment.
In July 2020, he “married” Lu, who purportedly believed that the divorce had been finalized. In December 2023, Patricia Greely obtained a writ of execution to enforce the judgment of dissolution, and she served notices of levy on nine accounts that were held by Lu, a trust in her name, or jointly with her son in May 2024.
Invalidation of Marriage
Approximately one week after receiving the notices, Lu petitioned to invalidate the marriage in court, and the application was granted in July 2024. She also filed claims of exemption regarding the levies with the local sheriff, arguing that her marriage was “void ab initio” based on bigamy.
Meanwhile, Patricia Greely filed an emergency application seeking a hearing. Lu filed her own “Ex Parte Application To Recall Writs of Attachment.”
On Oct. 14, 2024, San Diego Superior Court Judge Renee Stackhouse ruled that Patricia Greely was entitled to nearly all of the funds in each of the 10 accounts, saying:
“The [c]ourt does not find that the annulment of the marriage undermines the basis for the lev[ies] or invalidates [them].”
Wednesday’s opinion reverses the order and declares:
“The matter is remanded with directions to enter an order (1) quashing the notices of levy served by Patricia on May 10, 2024…, and (2) directing Patricia to return all funds obtained from the improper levies. [Lu] is entitled to recover her costs on appeal.”
No Statutory Means
Acknowledging that “[t]he ELJ provides no statutory means to address a defect in a notice of levy on a deposit account in a financial institution,” Do pointed out that a trial court has authority under §187 to use “any suitable process or mode of proceeding” in order to carry out its duties under the law and remarked:
“The substance of a motion to quash the notices of levy, while not specifically labeled so, was…always before the court from the very beginning of [Lu’s] appearance in this matter. The ‘label given a petition, action or other pleading is not determinative; rather, the true nature of a petition or cause of action is based on the facts alleged and remedy sought in that pleading.’…The trial court was accordingly well within its discretion pursuant to section 187 and its inherent authority to entertain [the] motion to quash the notices of levy.”
Saying that “it is undisputed that [Lu] and Albert were parties to a bigamous marriage” and so “their marriage was invalid” from the start, she wrote:
“[W]e hold the notices of levy here were defective to the extent they purported to reach deposit accounts standing in [Lu’s] name alone or held together with her son….[A]lthough the notices of levy were supported by an affidavit of marriage, the marriage was invalid at the time of service because the bigamous marriage between [Lu] and Albert was invalid from the date of its inception….The notices of levy were accordingly defective, and the corresponding levies on [the] accounts invalid. The trial court erred when it ruled otherwise.”
Factual Issues
Rejecting Patricia Greely’s assertion that Lu improperly sought to quash the notices of levy instead of filing a third-party claim where there were factual issues in dispute, the jurist responded:
“But there are no factual issues subject to dispute on the question of [the] void, bigamous marriage. To prove the invalidity of her marriage to Albert, [Lu] obtained a judgment declaring it to be a nullity on grounds of bigamy. She thus demonstrated definitively…that the notices of levy were defective because the supporting spousal affidavits were false.”
Do added:
“The question presented here is not whether the funds in [Lu’s] accounts are subject to levy by Patricia. The question is whether…Patricia is permitted to shortcut the requirement of obtaining a court order before levying on [Lu’s] accounts based on an affidavit that [Lu] is Albert’s spouse. The answer to this question is ‘no’ because [Lu] established her marriage to Albert was bigamous and void. Patricia must obtain a court order before levying on [Lu’s] separately held accounts.”
The case is Greely v. Greely, 2026 S.O.S. 1401.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company