Kono v. Meeker
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
*84Opinion
ROBIE, J.
Defendants Lawrence R. Meeker and Carole J. Meeker (collectively the Meekers) argued unsuccessfully in the trial court that inventory items sold by their retail antiques.business are exempt from levy of execution to enforce a money judgment because they constitute the “tools of the[ir] trade.” (See Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 704.060, subd. (a).) We conclude the trial court correctly determined that items from the Meekers’ inventory of antiques are not exempt from levy and affirm the order denying their claim of exemption.
BACKGROUND
The Meekers are antique dealers, doing business as…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- In re Estate of McManusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Katosh v. Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Lopp v. LoppCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- In re PetersenDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1899
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sourcecorp, Inc. v. ShillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Kilker v. StillmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- O'Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Bergstrom v. Zions BancorporationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Larkin v. WCABCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.