A Wage Garnishment Question

Shazzers.

I did a completely unscientific calculation, based on what information you provided and what I guessed at, using the formula "Principal X Rate X time."

5573.50 X .08 X 46 months. I guessed at months as I was presuming the 46 payments were monthly, and not weekly or bi-weekly. Let me know if I'm wrong.

When I work out the math, I come up with the interest that would have accrued for the 46 months IAO 1709.21. Add that to the original principal, and I come up with a total amount due of 7,282.71.

So it seems to me you have just a little more to go.

Of course, this is totally unscientific as I didn't take into consideration if the interest accrued each month/year is added to the principal and used to compute the next month's interest (compounded monthly/annually) or not. And, again, I wasn't sure of your payment frequency, be it weekly or monthly.

Carrying it a step further, if those were weekly payments, then yes you are getting hosed. I compute the total amount that would have been due during that time period at right around 6,000, as there would not have been as much time for the interest to accumulate while you've been paying it down. If you have paid 6785.00, I'm guessing you are overpaid.

Do you have any of the paperwork that explains how/when the interest is calculated? That might give you a better idea of what you should owe (or how to calculate it) vs. what you have already paid.

5573.50 X .08 X 46 months. I guessed at months as I was presuming the 46 payments were monthly, and not weekly or bi-weekly. Let me know if I'm wrong.


Hiya Ron, yes, those payments were taken out weekly. The only paper work he has (my estranged husband) are the court papers, stating $5573.50 plus interest of 8% per annum plus costs. That's it.

I told him he should call the court house today and speak with the clerk of courts. The clerk of courts gave him the telephone number for the Attorney that represented the original creditor. Now, why wouldn't the court house know his balance? After all, they're the ones that granted this garnishment. And should he or not, trust the word of an Attorney who represented the original creditor? It seems to me that the court would be responsible for keeping track of this. I really am not sure, that's just my assumption.

Yeah, I'm thinking someone at the courthouse, or some other independent third party, should be keeping track of it too, otherwise the OC, CA, and/or attorney is liable to keep the money rolling in indefinitely! What have they got to lose? Certainly not that steady flow of cash coming in, as it's not coming out of their paycheck.

Even with the phrase "plus costs" thrown in there, which I'm presuimng means court costs, I'm still thinking the debt should be about paid off or pretty darn close to it.

Did he have an attorney that represented him? If not, he might have to contact the suing attorny and look into it through him. If he feels like he's getting the runaround, he might have to seek some sort of legal counsel.

Maybe someone else a little more in the know can weigh in on this.

Yeah, the phrase "plus costs" sort of caught my attention also, I am assuming that means court costs, and according to the docket, the court costs were $200.00. He didn't have an Attorney, and in fact didn't show up for the court date, it was another one of those ignore it and it will go away syndromes. Anyway, thanks for replying, I appreciate it. If anyone else has anything else to add, or can advise me on what to do, I would appreciate it!

Please keep in mind that the federal capacity for wage garnishment is 25% of the person's disposable income which may be further modified or denied by state law. You can check my signature link for garnishment laws by state.

Yikes!

Well, can't say I've never used the "ignore it and it will go away" reasoning myself; however, when I was served with papers last year I decided it was time to change that tune. Thank goodness for Legal Aide and the help they gave me in that situation.

Of course if they had won their case, they would have found out a judgment against someone that has ZERO assets or income will still get them a big fat ZERO. I'm still having problems understanding why that Attorney CA just didn't seem to comprehend when I told them I had been out of work for, at that time, 8 months and had no idea when or if I would ever go back.

I guess they hear that every day and tend not to believe it when someone tells them that.

JCEMT, that is good information to know. I wasn't sure if the "25% percent disposable income rule", was the absolute maximum that any CA could get via wage garnishment anywhere. Thanks for that!

JCEMT
Please keep in mind that the federal capacity for wage garnishment is 25% of the person's disposable income which may be further modified or denied by state law. You can check my signature link for garnishment laws by state.

Thanks for the info JCEMT, I understand that, but what exactly does it mean in terms of the amount granted to the plaintiff by the court? Does this mean the garnishment is subject to change? If so, that makes no sense to me, because like Ron said, this could be a steady flow of cash coming in for the plaintiff, at the defendants expense. There has to be an end somewhere????

Shazzers, from what I've read and come to understand, once an award is granted by the courts for a debt the principal amount becomes in effect "locked." Meaning shyster CA's and Attorneys can't keep tacking on fees and penalties to that amount, or come back at some future date and say "oh no, you're wrong, the court awarded us 8,573.50, not 5,573.50. I'm so sure a CA/Attorney would never try that(I say my voice dripping of sarcasm) Of course the court costs are added on, but I believe that would be fixed amount too and should be documented also, and couldn't keep going up however much the CA/Attorney sees fit. The interest would, however, begin accruing causing the amount to go up some. In my opinion, though, 8% seems reasonable as I don't think I've even seen that many Credit Cards with 8% interest lately. Add to that the fact the payments were being made weekly, thus not allowing the accrued interest to climb over a longer time period like years, then the accrued interest should be pretty negligible too.

I think JCEMT was just trying to reinforce the fact that even if a CA/Attorney wins judgment, then gets the order of wage garnishment, the most they could take from your check would be 25% of your disposable income. That's it. They can't take your entire check, or financially cripple you making you unable to pay your other bills and necessary everyday living expenses just to satisfy theirs. Of course, I still can't quite figure out how the court actually arives at the amount of your "disposable income."

You can always ask a judgment creditor for a updated affidavit of costs to be mailed to you. It would be a legal document showing total costs showing at judgment day and then you just apply the interest divided by weekly payments.

Thanks everyone, in fact he is suppose to call them Monday, I'm interested in finding out what they have to say, but I still think the court should hold some responsibility for keeping track of this garnishment. They [the courts] were paid for their services.