California law gives creditors powerful tools to collect unpaid judgments. But a recent appellate decision is a reminder that those tools still have limits – especially when they reach into the bank accounts of someone who is not actually the judgment debtor’s spouse.

In Greely v. Lu, the California Court of Appeal addressed an unusual situation involving a bigamous marriage, frozen bank accounts, and more than $380,000 seized through bank levies that, according to the court, never should have been taken in the first place. 

A Divorce, a Second Marriage, and Unpaid Support

Patricia Greely and Albert Greely, married since 1981, divorced in May of 2023. A family court judge ordered Albert to pay Patricia approximately $1.4 million, consisting of spousal support arrears and an equalization payment, plus spousal support of $6,000 per month.

Albert did not pay.

Patricia turned to California’s Enforcement of Judgments Law to collect what she was owed. She obtained a writ of execution and levied on bank accounts connected to Albert.

But there was a complication.

In July 2020, almost three years before his divorce from Patricia, Albert had married another woman, Jenny Ying Lin Lu. Jenny apparently believed Albert was already divorced. Only later did she discover that he was not.

Her lack of knowledge became important.

Albert failed to make payments to Patricia as ordered by the San Diego Superior Court, so Patricia obtained a writ of execution from the court authorizing her to seize certain of his assets. In May of 2024, the San Diego County Sheriff served notices of levy on Albert’s accounts with Citibank and Fidelity Investments.

Under California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160, a creditor can obtain a court order to levy on bank accounts held in the name of the spouse of a judgment debtor if the creditor provides an affidavit stating the account holder is the debtor’s spouse.

Patricia submitted an affidavit that Jenny was Albert’s wife. Citibank and Fidelity then froze more than $380,000 held in accounts held solely by Jenny, her trust, or jointly with her son. None of these accounts were jointly held with Albert.

(In her 2023 divorce proceedings, Patricia, however, specifically referred to Albert’s bigamous marriage to Jenny when arguing for spousal support in their 2023 divorce proceedings, suggesting that Patricia knew  Jenny and Albert’s marriage was bigamous and thus void when she sought the notices of levy on Jenny’s accounts.

The Second Marriage Ends

A week after being served with the levy on her accounts and thus learning the truth about Albert’s marital status, Jenny obtained an annulment based on bigamy.

Under California law, a bigamous marriage is void from the beginning. Legally speaking, the marriage of Jenny and Albert never existed at all.

Jenny asked the court to lift the seizure on her accounts. She argued that because the marriage was void from the start, Patricia had no right to use the special “spouse” exception that allowed her to levy on Jenny’s accounts without a prior court order.

Since there was no valid marriage, Jenny argued, she was simply a third-party account holder, so Patricia should have been required to obtain judicial authorization before freezing Jenny’s accounts.

The trial court ruled against Jenny, holding that the later annulment did not invalidate the levies that had already occurred.

A Void Marriage Means No Spousal Levy Rights

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. It emphasized a long-standing principle of California law: a void marriage is invalid “for all purposes” from the moment it begins.

Because Albert and Jenny’s marriage was bigamous, it never created a lawful spousal relationship. This meant Patricia’s affidavits asserting that Jenny was Albert’s spouse could not support the levies on Jenny’s separate accounts.

The appellate court noted that California’s enforcement statutes draw an important distinction between accounts held by the judgment debtor and accounts held by third parties. Normally, creditors must first obtain a court order before reaching accounts held by someone else.

The exception allowing seizure of accounts held by a spouse is narrow and is contingent on the existence of an actual legal marriage. Here, there was none.

As a result, the levies were defective, the justices ruled, and Jenny’s accounts were improperly seized.

Patricia raised several legal arguments in an attempt to preserve the levies, but the Court of Appeal focused on one issue: whether Patricia could bypass the requirement of obtaining a court order by relying on the spousal affidavit procedure. The justices’ answer was no.

Patricia was ordered to return the funds obtained from Jenny’s accounts.

If Patricia wants to pursue the funds in Jenny’s accounts, the justices said she must proceed as she would against any third party, by obtaining a court order and litigating whether the assets are reachable under applicable law.

Patricia can still pursue lawful remedies if she believes the funds are reachable, the justices said, but she cannot rely on a marriage that never legally existed in order to shortcut the statutory process.

By Jessica Stermple