## Facts

- A judgment creditor obtained a Los Angeles County Superior Court money judgment against a dentist and a corporate codefendant for $382,886 plus costs; the judgment became final after affirmance on appeal.
- Collection by execution and garnishment produced $36,560 from funds held in the debtor’s name in a pending escrow.
- Additional collection efforts were largely unsuccessful, including an attempt to garnish apartment-building rents that was resisted by a relative asserting a trust deed and assignment of rents.
- The creditor assigned the judgment to a collection agency, which initiated a separate proceeding seeking appointment of a receiver to marshal and disburse the debtor’s assets to satisfy the judgment.
- Declarations stated the debtor refused to pay, ordinary process could not effectively reach his earnings, and the debtor indicated his accounts receivable were structured to make levy difficult and assets hard to locate.
- The superior court appointed a receiver to take possession of and collect amounts received by the debtor for dental services, including earnings, cash, bank deposits, and checks.
- The debtor appealed, arguing a receiver cannot be appointed to collect a simple money judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a California court may appoint a receiver in aid of enforcing a money judgment when execution and garnishment have proven ineffective.
2. Whether appointing a receiver to collect a professional’s earnings is permissible when statutory exemptions for personal service earnings apply.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a receiver based on the creditor’s showing of inadequate legal remedies and collection obstruction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order appointing the receiver.
- The court held receivership may be used as an auxiliary remedy to enforce a money judgment when ordinary legal remedies are inadequate.
- The court concluded the order was within the trial court’s discretion given the limited success of execution, the showing that levy on earnings was impracticable, and evidence that the debtor’s financial arrangements impeded collection.
- The court accepted that the receivership was to operate consistently with statutory limits on reaching personal service earnings, including the framework of Code of Civil Procedure section 690.6.

## Legal Principles

- A receiver may be appointed in aid of carrying a judgment into effect when necessary to preserve, collect, and apply a debtor’s property or income to satisfy a judgment.
- The mere fact that the underlying judgment is for money does not categorically bar a receivership; necessity and appropriateness control.
- Receivership is an equitable remedy generally reserved for situations where legal remedies such as execution and garnishment are inadequate or readily thwarted.
- A receivership directed at earnings from personal services must respect statutory exemption limits governing those earnings.
- Appointment of a receiver is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a substantial unpaid judgment, failed collection efforts, and evidence of collection obstruction support the exercise of that discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a receivership over a judgment debtor’s professional earnings as a permissible, discretionary enforcement tool where ordinary collection methods were ineffective and the order was structured to operate within statutory earnings-exemption limits.


Olsan v. Comora, 73 Cal. App. 3d 642, 140 Cal. Rptr. 835 (Ct. App. 1977)