California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Lamoure v. Lamoure, E048992, Super.Ct.No. SBFSS71194 (Cal. App. 2011):
Father further concedes in his appellant's opening brief that he did ultimately receive notice of levy "second hand and later had a later day in court." In response to the notice of levy, he filed a claim of exemption and motion to quash the levy. After conducting a full and meaningful hearing on father's claim of exemption and motion to quash, the trial court found that father had received notice of the levy. Even assuming, without deciding, that father was not provided with proper statutory notice of levy on his IRA account, any technical failure to comply with notice requirements did not invalidate the levy since father had actual notice. (Gortner v. Gortner (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 996, 1001.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.