N.C. Garnishment

don't forget florida, head of houshold cannot be garnished by collectors. So yay for
the deadbeats, and thiefs. Steel, and steel. We're not in financial trouble in this country already. Savings and loan bust. Hmmmmm wonder why that happened? Pay
your freekin bills folks. These big capitalist skylines exist on debt. You think those are all paid off. yea right.

Florida Is also A non garnishable state......As long as you've fiiled for homestead exemption

It has nothing to due with homestead exemption in Florida...not everyone owns a home. You are exempt from garnishment if you are "head of household"

Soaplady: Is this true for every State?

yep, just adding to the collection of deadbeats!! How nice people can rip off businesses and get away with it!!

Unregistered . . . do you have any idea how your ignorance is showing? You don't have a clue to these people's lives and for you to post your ugly, thoughtless remark especially under an "unregistered" name - truly shows your colors! You hide behind your anonymity . . . now what does that make you? You're absolutely laughable!

"Actually, unfortunately what I've just read is that wage garnishment can occur in NC if the creditor is able to get the garnishment under the laws of their own state (if they are not from NC). I found this on the a website called NC Labor with a dot com"

I havent read this information link you posted but please be very careful in your reading of such things. Im about 90% certain youre incorrect in your interpretation of this....let me explain.

S.C. where I live has a similar provision concerning garnishment. It could be interpreted the way you describe as "if the creditor is able to get the garnishment under the laws of their own state (if they are not from NC)..."

It doesnt work like that however. If it did it would be a worthless statute because only 4 states prohibit garnishment for civil debts and almost no major banks (except for Bof A) are headquartered in these states that Im aware of. What that law you mention actually MEANS (at least in S.C.) is this.....

If YOU live in a state that allows garnishment and YOU default and YOU get sued and YOU get a garnishment order from a court having jurisdiction over YOU in such a state and YOU move to a non garnishment state (say S.C or N.C) then they can domisticate the judgment YOU had in your former state and the garnishment order will be allowed to stand even though local state statutes say no.

It has nothing to do with if the laws of their state allow garnishement or not.

Hope this helps.

sorry rown,but further interpretation finds that only if the debt was incurred in that state can a creditor be granted judgement elsewhere.then the judgement moved to the current state of the debtor.otherwise the creditor must sue in the state where the person resides.unless the person incurred the debt in another state they must be sued in the town,village,county or bourough.example:

i live in illinios.unless i physically incur debt in another state.a creditor can't sue me in another state and try to enforce a judgement.however yes if the person lived in another state when the debt did incur then they can be sued in that state.btw getting credit cards via the internet doesn't count.the state where the person resides is where they must be sued.that is how i took the info on the site NC labor.com

"sorry rown,but further interpretation..."

I dont get the "sorry" part like we are disagreeing. I think were saying the same thing exactly though I might have not been too clear.

Thats basically what I said in my post. There has to be some situation where you are under the "foreign" courts jurisdiction (like your example of the debt being incurred while you lived in the other state in your example) and then moving.

The reciprocity of getting judgments domesticated is designed for you (the defendant) not to be able to escape the consequences by moving (example getting garnished then moving to a non garnishment state so they cant). Its NOT designed for plaintiffs to set themselves up in a state favorable to them (say Delaware where most are located) and suing you there so they get the most advantage.

Its commonly held that they must sue you where you live unless as you said you lived somewhere else when the action they are suing on took place.

Arent we saying bascically the same thing? Help me out here if not, Im confused.