bank acount froze or cleaned out

[sarg3707]

What is the name of your state?oklahoma
I just recieved in the mail Saturday the 18th of December a notice of garnishment from my bank. my account is not showing a balance when I check it at the atm machine but the automated line still says I have money in the account. the date on the garnishment letter was on Wednesday the 15th. And I mailed several bills that day the garnisment is from a credit card company that used a local lawyer and he was awarded an additional thousand dollars. I assume both have taken me to court even though I was not served papers with instructions to go to court. I guess my question is what can I do at this point to at least know that the checks I wrote to pay bills will clear the bank. And the garnishment papers say I have Five days to file for exempt money if I can claim any. Thank you for a quick answer in advance.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by sarg3707

I guess my question is what can I do at this point to at least know that the checks I wrote to pay bills will clear the bank.

Any checks that had not cleared your account prior to the garnishment will NOT clear. They will bounce.... and incur additional charges.

[sarg3707]

Thank you for responding so fast, and for the advice. If the money that is in the account is direct deposit from my job is it exempt to 75% protection? And is the garnishment in effect until paid in full or is it a one time garnishment. The amount I have in the account is lower than the garnishment amount.

[Ladynred]

No, the wage garnisment exemption does NOT apply to your direct-deposit paycheck. A wage garnishment would be a separate action and would go thru your employer.

If you are saying you were never served with this lawsuit, then call the courthouse and get a copy of the judgment case file, in it will be a 'proof of service' that will tell you when, where how, and to whom the summons was served. You MAY be able to attack the judgment if service was improper.

[stevek3]

Originally Posted by Ladynred

No, the wage garnisment exemption does NOT apply to your direct-deposit paycheck. A wage garnishment would be a separate action and would go thru your employer.

If you are saying you were never served with this lawsuit, then call the courthouse and get a copy of the judgment case file, in it will be a 'proof of service' that will tell you when, where how, and to whom the summons was served. You MAY be able to attack the judgment if service was improper.

I sometimes wonder if you keep giving erroneous answers on purpose, just for your own savage amusement.

Original poster: The funds in your checking account ARE substantially exempt to the extent those funds can be directly traced back to your recent direct-deposit paycheck from your employer. Personal earnings do not lose their exemption merely by virtue of it being deposited in a checking account. So, if this indeed is what happened, then request the hearing. Otherwise, you'll waive the hearing. Be fully prepared to show a complete paper trail to prove where those recently deposited funds originated. This burden to prove your right to the exemption is entirely upon you.

Of course, you will then be opening yourself up to possible future wage garnishments, as they will then know the identity of your employer. But at least you won't be caught unaware and you'll be better prepared to budget for it.

[stevek3]

I neglected to note that you should also be prepared to show your sole source of income is from your employer, as well as any and all financial hardships you may have. Not only for the court to see, as Oklahoma gives more discretion to the courts in this regard, but also to possibly negotiate a settlement with the creditor that will be more comfortable for you to handle.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by stevek3

I sometimes wonder if you keep giving erroneous answers on purpose, just for your own savage amusement.

And I wonder at yours also!! Ladynred is correct.

Original poster: The funds in your checking account ARE substantially exempt to the extent those funds can be directly traced back to your recent direct-deposit paycheck from your employer.

And of course, that is NOT true. The minute that those wages are transferred to the debtors 'custody and control', they lose whatever exemption might have applied to UNPAID wages.

Generally, there are two types of garnishments (assignments) available to the judgment creditor. The first is a wage garnishment... served on the employer of the debtor. The employer then MUST take specific steps to garnish the employees wages.... BEFORE they are 'delivered' to the debtor!!
The second type of garnishment is in this case.... against a bank account. At the time of the garnishment notice on the bank, any exemptions that would have been available on wages, are no longer available... as the seized funds are no longer exempt. However, the account holder (debtor) MAY have additional exemptions available, such as if the funds derived from pension, SSI payments, etc.

I suggest you read the Oklahoma Statutes, Title 12, Chapter 21.
[url]http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKST12&level=1[/url]

[stevek3]

Originally Posted by JETX

And I wonder at yours also!! Ladynred is correct.


And of course, that is NOT true. The minute that those wages are transferred to the debtors 'custody and control', they lose whatever exemption might have applied to UNPAID wages.

Generally, there are two types of garnishments (assignments) available to the judgment creditor. The first is a wage garnishment... served on the employer of the debtor. The employer then MUST take specific steps to garnish the employees wages.... BEFORE they are 'delivered' to the debtor!!
The second type of garnishment is in this case.... against a bank account. At the time of the garnishment notice on the bank, any exemptions that would have been available on wages, are no longer available... as the seized funds are no longer exempt. However, the account holder (debtor) MAY have additional exemptions available, such as if the funds derived from pension, SSI payments, etc.

I suggest you read the Oklahoma Statutes, Title 12, Chapter 21.
[url]http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKST12&level=1[/url]

You're incorrect. I've repeatedly encountered identical situations as this guy in six states, most of the cases in Ohio, since that's where I do almost all of my court business. The garnishments in the other states have been the result of foreign judgments I've filed there. Actually, I'm thankful the vast majority of debtors believe the same thing you believe. If it's been sitting around in a savings account, it's considered to be a different story. But a recent personal earnings deposit in a checking account, nope. For the sake of my own wallet, I wish you were absolutely right, but you're not. It's a nice thought, though.

As far as Oklahoma is concerned, they also take hardship into account. Thus, a possible exemption.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by stevek3

You're incorrect.

Sorry, but no.

I've repeatedly encountered identical situations as this guy in six states, most of the cases in Ohio, since that's where I do almost all of my court business.

Lets see... as of today, I have done over 600 bank account seizures, in most every state, including Oklahoma. And what you are thinking is the law... isn't.

The garnishments in the other states have been the result of foreign judgments I've filed there.

Though most of mine were NOT domesticated judgments (rendered in the state being exercised), some of them were. However, the issue of domestication or not.... makes NO difference.

Actually, I'm thankful the vast majority of debtors believe the same thing you believe.

So am I, because when the debtor tries to assert an exemption that isn't valid, I am awarded fees (and occasionally sanctions) from the court.

[stevek3]

Originally Posted by JETX

Sorry, but no.


Lets see... as of today, I have done over 600 bank account seizures, in most every state, including Oklahoma. And what you are thinking is the law... isn't.


Though most of mine were NOT domesticated judgments (rendered in the state being exercised), some of them were. However, the issue of domestication or not.... makes NO difference.


So am I, because when the debtor tries to assert an exemption that isn't valid, I am awarded fees (and occasionally sanctions) from the court.

I'm not going to waste my valuable football TV time looking for the case law from the other states, but do you want the authority for Ohio?

[JETX]

Originally Posted by stevek3

I'm not going to waste my valuable football TV time looking for the case law from the other states, but do you want the authority for Ohio?

And why would I want that... when this thread is about OKLAHOMA laws??

[stevek3]

Originally Posted by JETX

And why would I want that... when this thread is about OKLAHOMA laws??

I've been offline since my last post in this thread, so I haven't read any of my private messages since that date. Guess what...looks like you were wrong. Just like you are wrong about the statute of limitations for Ohio credit card debts. Stick to your California stuff, you're an awfully stubborn dude. I wouldn't even begin to try to answer California questions that I know nothing about, so maybe you shouldn't try to answer Ohio questions that you know nothing about. Or, as it turns out, Oklahoma questions. If you say the Earth is flat, then dammit, the Earth is flat. If you say Ohio is shaped like a carrot, then dammit, Ohio is shaped like a carrot.

Anyway, here's the original poster's private message he sent to me on January 3, 2005. I just now read it. I'm glad I could help the guy. Actually, I absolutely knew my response would definitely apply if the situation arose in Ohio, but I was not certain it would also apply to Oklahoma. The only thing I know for sure about Oklahoma is the Sooners play there, and that wayward tornadoes are often seen flying around in bunches. Evidently, my response applied to Oklahoma, too:

Originally Posted by sarg3707

Just want to let you know that right before Christmas I had my acct closed and your response was right I filed an exemption for wages showed all direct deposit listing in my account and the court granted them 75% exempt. Thank you for your knowledge even though you were getting hammered by a few other people on the post. And enjoy the game Football that is.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by stevek3

Guess what...looks like you were wrong.

I guess you must have given up 'intelligence' for Lent, huh??

Where did I say anything about the debtor not being able to challenge an exemption.

Since reading and comprehension are clearly foreign to you, let me help you:

1) I said, "Any checks that had not cleared your account prior to the garnishment will NOT clear. They will bounce.... and incur additional charges."
That is correct... and not challenged by you (or the OP's PM to you).

2) I said, "The second type of garnishment is in this case.... against a bank account. At the time of the garnishment notice on the bank, any exemptions that would have been available on wages, are no longer available... as the seized funds are no longer exempt. However, the account holder (debtor) MAY have additional exemptions available, such as if the funds derived from pension, SSI payments, etc."
That is also correct.... and not challenged by you (or the OP's PM to you).

As for your claim of the OP's private message to you....
Here is the PM he sent to me:
"Who is that idiot steve3k?? I knew in reading his tripe that he works for a debt collector, probably Asset Acceptance, and is either an idiot or somehow believes his employers crap 'get-the-debtor newsletters'.
Thanks to you and Ladynred for your information.... and keep up the good work. We need you to continue telling the truth to counter idiots like steve3k."

Anudder kitty fight so cool!!!

[ablessin]

RIGHT ON

IT HAS HAPPNED TO ME - when your bank account is frozen ALL direct deposit monies become "their" property (the debt collector) until the account is paid.
ALL checks WILL bounce - - -mine did!! (my rent of all of the ones to bounce)

My suggest - is to giddy-up to the HR dept at work and STOP the direct deposit.

Then work on how you're going to pay them back..... but at least you'll have money for life silly little luxuries, you know the ones called
GAS, FOOD, RENT - the things courts seem to overlook these days on a variety of topics (child support payments being one of them)