Wage Garnishment laws

I don't know the answer, but be patient and someone will definitely post the answer. Also, in the meantime you can search all of the posts for some answers.

Only 25% of your disposable income can be garnished...Which means after taxes and voluntary deductions.
Is this a PDL company? If so, is it storefront or internet? An internet company could never get a judgement to garnish, unless their licensing is completely in order. A storefront lender generally follows the laws(not always) and can get a judgement
A garnishment is ALWAYS a last resort for companies. It costs them a bit of cash, and they really don't want to do it. As long as you make arrangements, keep them, and communicate, they should work with you. However, If you defaulted a long time ago, it will be difficult.
If you ARE already being garnished and have questions, please feel free to pm me.

Every state has its own laws on when garnishment can occur and how much can be taken. The poster should consult an attorney in his/her area for an accurate answer.

Unfortunately, legal advice and interpretations are given way too freely on this board. "25% of your disposable income" may seem like a simple answer to a simple question. But the question rlharris3 asked is actually a helluva lot more complex than that, and unless he/she happens to live in the same state as finsfan13 and finsfan13's interpretation of the garnishment laws is 100% accurate, the poster would be foolhardy to rely on this statement.

BTW - I'm only singling out finsfan13 because his/her post is the latest on in the topic. This problem is endemic throughout this board and the worst offenders, in my opinion, are some of the moderators.

Here are just a few of the many questions that came to mind as I read this exchange?

If 25% is the cap in Michigan, is it the same in every other state? Maybe rlharris3 lives in a state like Pennsylvania, where only taxes and child support can be garnished? Or maybe he/she lives in New Mexico, where the attorney general is required by law (though against her will) to criminally prosecute some debtors (even some payday loan borrowers) under bad check laws and garnishment is the least of his/her concerns.

Assuming that 25% cap is set in stone, does the creditor need to get a judgment first? Or can it be done through a "self-help" process? What if rlharris3 signed an assignment of wages agreement? Is it legal, or would that be void on public policy grounds?

How do you define "disposable income" when calculating the 25% cap? Is it what the debtor has left after paying for necessities? Or does it mean net after taxes?

In summary, a lot more information is needed to accurately answer the question, most of which concerns the laws of the poster's home state.

I also have a few final thoughts on the issue of whether an internet lender can never get a judgment.
The Buckeye Check Cashing decision stated that courts must uphold valid arbitration clauses even in otherwise illegal contracts? In other words, the arbitrator will decide whose state laws apply and whether the contract is legal under the applicable law. Assuming an internet lender wins in arbitration (under its home state law) and perfects that award as a judgment in its home state's courts, wouldn't the borrower's state have to honor that judgment under the "full faith and credit" clause?

I realize that this is probably not much of a risk because most internet lenders engage in a cost-benefit analysis to decide how far to take their collections matters. For example, a lender in Nevada isn't likely to go to the expense necessary to get a $300 judgment entered and enforced in Virginia. But there's a big difference between saying a lender "probably won't" versus "could never get" a judgment. This especially true today, as there is a case pending in the U.S. District Court in Kansas right now that will likely decide whether these internet companies are legal or not and which state's law applies to a loan (i.e., the lender's or the borrower's) If the lenders win, they will probably get much more aggressive.)

Actually guest, my knowledge of garnishment is pretty darned accurate, since it's what I do for a living. Not knowing my stuff could really get me into A LOT of trouble.
25% is the federal cap. Things like child support, back taxes, and other federal debts can actually be garnished as much as 50%. There are also states, such as Texas, where garnishment, excluding federal debts, is illegal. I suppose I should've asked what state the poster was in. And..Disposable income is simply this..Your income after taxes, mandatory and voluntary. Garnishment laws are pretty simple and straightforward..Not a whole lot there.
As far as payday loans garnishing..Please re-read my statement. I said an internet lender could never get a judgement to garnish "unless their licensing is in order." There are always shades of gray. What judge in the United States is going to honor a judgement to a company operating illegally. We as citizens have laws we must follow..Corporations have laws they must follow as well.
And..wage assignment is not the same as garnishment..It is not court ordered in the case of a PDL (although yes, there are court ordered wage assignments, but this is a different issue altogether.)A wage assignment is voluntary, and can be revoked at will at any time.
You seem to have a bit of knowledge yourself..why don't you register and share that with us?

Ok guest, why not you sign as a community member and offer your advice in an identified way. You are right that garnishment is governed as per the state laws but as per the federal laws, the maximum amount of wages garnished is 25%. No creditor can garnish more than the 25% limit in any state. Finsfan was pointing out the fact keeping the federal laws in mind and not the state laws. And, answering to your other part of the question regarding how much wages can be garnished after deducting disposable income, here is the unbiased information everyone needs.
Quote:

Andy,
Thank you for defending me. The article that you posted verifies what I stated in my first post. I really would hate to have my reputation tarnished by someone who doesn't have all the info..Thanks again.

There. Happy now, Andy? Now I have stupid screen name too. I choose not to be a member because I don't want their debt counselling analysis nor have my e-mail address sold to every spammer and lead generator.

I'm equally thrilled to hear garnishment is what you do for a living, finsfan. I have no idea what that has to do with my point, but at least I know who to contact whenever I need to collect a judgment in Michigan.

My point was not to give you a pop quiz on the National Labor Relations Act. My point was that debtors' situations are among the most complex - from a legal standpoint - that exist. There are way too many variables and fact-sensitive analyses that come into play for anyone to say what rlharris3's possible exposure is without getting a helluva lot more information first.

If I've learned anything in 12 years of practicing law - on behalf of both debtors and creditors - it's that there are no absolutes. Even the simple commandment "Thou shalt not kill." gets complicated when we have to consider self-defense, insanity pleas, manslaughter vs. murder, etc. Similarly, the fact that the NLRA sets a nationwide cap on wage garnishments doesn't necessarily answer most of the questions I raised above.

Finally, I'd love to bite on the whole "properly licensed" question because I've spent a great deal of time researching online consumer lending and constructing legal models for making such loans over the past few years. However, my response would run several pages of legalese. In any case, the issue is irrelevant to rlharris3's inquiry and was little more than an egotistical academic exercise on my part. Since few internet lenders pursue cases to judgment, whether licensed or not, the answer has little practical implications. I was wrong to make an issue of it here. Perhaps once the Kansas case is resolved, I'll post something about it. In the meanwhile, it would be best if we simply agree to disagree.

:D I guess we were getting off the track to what rlharris3 made on her original post. This discussion can go endless since you are making a point and I won't simply agree to disagree.

Oh no! You can do a free community sign up without going for the counseling session. Trust me, your email is safe here. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been here.

I don't think your sarcasm is necessary. Speaking for myself, i answered your first post in a mature manner..I figured you would follow suit.
As far as me filing garnishments all week long not being relevant to your point...Hey, I was defending myself. You attacked my post, did you not?
You're right when you say that every situation is different, and I think I acknowledged that myself when I said there are shades of gray. But I am fluent in garnishment laws. If however, rlharris3 needed legal advice, I would not answer that post. I just state the simple facts.
By the way, which payday loan company do you represent? The day a judge rules in favor of those sharks is the day I will print out all the posts I have made saying they never will...And eat them.

Quote:

Guest (or whatever you are calling yourself)---Obviously, you haven't read enough of the postings on this board to realize that nobody pertains to be anything other than what they are--nobody gives out any advice that don't feel qualified to. Everyone treats everyone else with a great deal of respect. Maybe you don't mean to, but your post tends to have a hint of bitterness and sarcasm.

can a company keep garnishing your wages after the court date? or do they have to re submit a new garnishment order?

Quote:

caseaa1999, this post is nearly 2 years old. I doubt the OP is still checking for updated advice.