CA AB 774
enactedCivil actions: enforcement of judgments.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 774 pass?
Yes. CA AB 774 has been enacted into law as of 2025-10-13. Latest recorded action (2025-10-13): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 708, Statutes of 2025.
What is CA AB 774 about?
(1) Existing law specifies procedures and requirements for a levying officer to serve documents, including a writ of execution issued by a court, on a judgment debtor. If the judgment upon which the writ is issued is for personal debt, the judgment creditor must provide the levying officer with a declaration stating that they have verified the judgment debtor's address and specifying the method of verification. Existing law requires a judgment creditor to file with the court the declaration within 5 business days after delivering it to the levying officer. Existing law also requires a judgment creditor executing a levy on the earnings of an employee to serve the earnings withholding order on both the judgment debtor employee and their employer. This bill would specify that transmittal of a legal pleading by first-class mail, certified mail, or other method of transmission through the United States Postal Service providing a return receipt, as specified, is a permissible method of verification. The bill would instead require the judgment creditor to file with the court the declaration described above within 10 business days after delivering it to the levying officer. The bill would also permit the declaration to be signed by an individual with adequate knowledge of the verification process, including a custodian of records or an attorney for the judgment creditor. The bill would delete the requirement that a judgment creditor executing a levy on the earnings of an employee serve the earnings withholding order on the employee. (2) Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor to levy upon the property of a judgment debtor to satisfy a judgment, and authorizes the judgment debtor to claim that certain property is exempt from the levy by following a specified procedure. Existing law authorizes a claimant to file a claim of exemption with the levying officer either in person or by mail. The period for filing a claim of exemption is 15 days if the judgment debtor is personally served with a notice of levy on the property claimed to be exempt, and 20 days if the claimant is served with notice by mail. Existing law deems the filing by mail complete on the date the claim is postmarked if the mailing is assigned a tracking number. If the mailing is not assigned a tracking number, the filing by mail is deemed complete on the date the claim is received by the levying officer. Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor who opposes a claim of exemption to file a notice of opposition to the claim and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim within 15 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption. This bill would authorize, for a personal debt as specified by law, a claimant to file a claim of exemption more than 20 days after the date the notice of levy is served on the judgment debtor. The bill would permit a levying officer to release the funds to the judgment creditor at any time after the expiration of the 20-day period. (3) Existing law specifies various procedures and requirements for a judgment debtor to claim exemptions to property that has been levied upon to satisfy a judgment. Existing law places the burden of proof on the claimant at a hearing to determine the claim of exemption. If the judgment upon which a writ of execution is issued is for personal debt, a court must order the return of any property that was exempt without the need for a claim or that would have been exempt by a claim of exemption, and that was levied upon within specified periods. Existing law specifies procedures and requirements for a money judgment to be satisfied and for the court to enter a satisfaction of judgment. This bill would clarify that the filing of an ex parte application in lieu of a motion for purposes of the procedures described above does not constitute a general appearance for purposes of a court exercising its jurisdiction over a party. (4) Existing law, the Wage Garnishment Law, authorizes a levy of execution on an employee's earnings by service of an earnings withholding order by the levying officer or the employer and requires the employer to provide the judgment debtor a copy of the earnings withholding order and notice of the earnings withholding order, as specified. Existing law requires the employer to complete an employer's return and return it to the levying officer. Under existing law, the employer's return and the form for its return are required to set forth specified information, including the name, address, and, if known, the judgment debtor's social security number. This bill would require the employer's return to include information setting forth the date on which the employer provided the judgment debtor with the earnings withholding order and the notice of earnings withholding order, the name and title of the person who provided the order and notice, and a short description of the manner in which the order and notice were provided. (5) Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment by creating a judgment lien on the real or personal property of a judgment debtor. These judgment liens continue in existence for a specified time or until the money judgment is satisfied or the judgment creditor releases the lien. Existing law also authorizes a judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment by a writ of execution, pursuant to which a levying officer takes possession of the judgment debtor's property to satisfy the judgment. Existing law authorizes a judgment debtor to exempt certain property, and, if the judgment is for personal debt, as defined, requires a court to order the judgment creditor to return to the judgment debtor any exempt property of the judgment creditor that was levied upon, as specified. This bill would authorize a judgment creditor to apply to the court for reinstatement of a released lien and its priority at the time of cancellation, as specified. The bill would require a court to enter in the court's records that the judgment is no longer satisfied to the extent of the returned funds or property, and to issue to the judgment creditor a certificate and notice of reinstatement of judgment lien as specified. The bill would require the application for reinstatement of a lien to be filed with a declaration by the judgment creditor that certifies specified information, including, among other things, that the judgment creditor released a lien with the reasonable belief that the money judgment was satisfied and the date and amount of the original judgment and any renewals thereof. The bill would impose a civil penalty of not more than $1,500 for knowingly certifying false information in the judgment creditor's declaration. The bill would give the judgment debtor an opportunity to object and, if an objection is filed, require the judgment creditor to proceed with a noticed motion for reinstatement of the lien. These provisions of the bill would become operative on July 1, 2026.
Who sponsors CA AB 774?
Bauer-Kahan is the primary sponsor of CA AB 774.
Description
(1) Existing law specifies procedures and requirements for a levying officer to serve documents, including a writ of execution issued by a court, on a judgment debtor. If the judgment upon which the writ is issued is for personal debt, the judgment creditor must provide the levying officer with a declaration stating that they have verified the judgment debtor's address and specifying the method of verification. Existing law requires a judgment creditor to file with the court the declaration within 5 business days after delivering it to the levying officer. Existing law also requires a judgment creditor executing a levy on the earnings of an employee to serve the earnings withholding order on both the judgment debtor employee and their employer. This bill would specify that transmittal of a legal pleading by first-class mail, certified mail, or other method of transmission through the United States Postal Service providing a return receipt, as specified, is a permissible method of verification. The bill would instead require the judgment creditor to file with the court the declaration described above within 10 business days after delivering it to the levying officer. The bill would also permit the declaration to be signed by an individual with adequate knowledge of the verification process, including a custodian of records or an attorney for the judgment creditor. The bill would delete the requirement that a judgment creditor executing a levy on the earnings of an employee serve the earnings withholding order on the employee. (2) Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor to levy upon the property of a judgment debtor to satisfy a judgment, and authorizes the judgment debtor to claim that certain property is exempt from the levy by following a specified procedure. Existing law authorizes a claimant to file a claim of exemption with the levying officer either in person or by mail. The period for filing a claim of exemption is 15 days if the judgment debtor is personally served with a notice of levy on the property claimed to be exempt, and 20 days if the claimant is served with notice by mail. Existing law deems the filing by mail complete on the date the claim is postmarked if the mailing is assigned a tracking number. If the mailing is not assigned a tracking number, the filing by mail is deemed complete on the date the claim is received by the levying officer. Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor who opposes a claim of exemption to file a notice of opposition to the claim and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim within 15 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption. This bill would authorize, for a personal debt as specified by law, a claimant to file a claim of exemption more than 20 days after the date the notice of levy is served on the judgment debtor. The bill would permit a levying officer to release the funds to the judgment creditor at any time after the expiration of the 20-day period. (3) Existing law specifies various procedures and requirements for a judgment debtor to claim exemptions to property that has been levied upon to satisfy a judgment. Existing law places the burden of proof on the claimant at a hearing to determine the claim of exemption. If the judgment upon which a writ of execution is issued is for personal debt, a court must order the return of any property that was exempt without the need for a claim or that would have been exempt by a claim of exemption, and that was levied upon within specified periods. Existing law specifies procedures and requirements for a money judgment to be satisfied and for the court to enter a satisfaction of judgment. This bill would clarify that the filing of an ex parte application in lieu of a motion for purposes of the procedures described above does not constitute a general appearance for purposes of a court exercising its jurisdiction over a party. (4) Existing law, the Wage Garnishment Law, authorizes a levy of execution on an employee's earnings by service of an earnings withholding order by the levying officer or the employer and requires the employer to provide the judgment debtor a copy of the earnings withholding order and notice of the earnings withholding order, as specified. Existing law requires the employer to complete an employer's return and return it to the levying officer. Under existing law, the employer's return and the form for its return are required to set forth specified information, including the name, address, and, if known, the judgment debtor's social security number. This bill would require the employer's return to include information setting forth the date on which the employer provided the judgment debtor with the earnings withholding order and the notice of earnings withholding order, the name and title of the person who provided the order and notice, and a short description of the manner in which the order and notice were provided. (5) Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment by creating a judgment lien on the real or personal property of a judgment debtor. These judgment liens continue in existence for a specified time or until the money judgment is satisfied or the judgment creditor releases the lien. Existing law also authorizes a judgment creditor to enforce a money judgment by a writ of execution, pursuant to which a levying officer takes possession of the judgment debtor's property to satisfy the judgment. Existing law authorizes a judgment debtor to exempt certain property, and, if the judgment is for personal debt, as defined, requires a court to order the judgment creditor to return to the judgment debtor any exempt property of the judgment creditor that was levied upon, as specified. This bill would authorize a judgment creditor to apply to the court for reinstatement of a released lien and its priority at the time of cancellation, as specified. The bill would require a court to enter in the court's records that the judgment is no longer satisfied to the extent of the returned funds or property, and to issue to the judgment creditor a certificate and notice of reinstatement of judgment lien as specified. The bill would require the application for reinstatement of a lien to be filed with a declaration by the judgment creditor that certifies specified information, including, among other things, that the judgment creditor released a lien with the reasonable belief that the money judgment was satisfied and the date and amount of the original judgment and any renewals thereof. The bill would impose a civil penalty of not more than $1,500 for knowingly certifying false information in the judgment creditor's declaration. The bill would give the judgment debtor an opportunity to object and, if an objection is filed, require the judgment creditor to proceed with a noticed motion for reinstatement of the lien. These provisions of the bill would become operative on July 1, 2026.
- Introduced
- 2025-03-24
- Latest action
- 2025-10-13 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 708, Statutes of 2025.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Bauer-Kahanauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-18
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
2025-02-19
From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.
2025-03-24
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-24
Referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2025-03-25
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2025-05-06
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (May 6).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-05-07
Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.
reading-1,reading-2
2025-05-12
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 1520.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-05-13
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-05-21
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.
referral-committee
2025-06-27
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-07-09
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-08-18
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-08-29
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-08-29
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 29).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-09-02
Ordered to special consent calendar.
2025-09-04
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2522.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-09-04
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
2025-09-08
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3031.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-09-15
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.
executive-receipt
2025-10-13
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2025-10-13
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 708, Statutes of 2025.
became-law
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass. To Consent Calendar.
2025-05-06 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Macedo: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Papan: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Dixon: yes
AB 774 Bauer-Kahan Consent Calendar Second Day
2025-05-12 · pass · 77-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Ellis: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Krell: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Bains: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Ta: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Soria: yes
- Chen: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Papan: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Lee: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Fong: yes
- Flora: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Patel: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Hart: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Addis: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Haney: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Bryan: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Ward: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Solache: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Berman: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Davies: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Nguyen: other
- Stefani: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-07-08 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Arreguín: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Allen: yes
- Stern: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Laird: yes
- Niello: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Umberg: yes
Placed on suspense file
2025-08-18 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Grayson: yes
Do pass
2025-08-29 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
Special Consent AB774 Bauer-Kahan
2025-09-04 · pass · 39-0
Member-level votes (40)
- Stern: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Laird: yes
- Limón: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Alvarado-Gil: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Choi: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Allen: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Niello: yes
- Grove: yes
- Jones: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Strickland: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Becker: yes
- Reyes: other
AB 774 Bauer-Kahan Concurrence in Senate Amendments
2025-09-08 · pass · 79-0
Member-level votes (80)
- Addis: yes
- Haney: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Berman: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Solache: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Zbur: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Patel: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Hart: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Soria: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Papan: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Davies: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Krell: yes
- Chen: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Bains: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Lee: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Ta: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Macedo: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Ward: yes
- Fong: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Flora: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Nguyen: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 774. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.