Thank you so much! I was really hoping they couldn;t until her pay went up. Not sure how she'll be able to get through this now?
Would it interest you to know that the "legal advice" LdiJ has imparted to you is incorrect?
The truth is that in the state of South Dakota post-judgment wage attachments (garnishments) are limited NOT to 25% of the debtor's disposable earnings BUT cannot exceed 20% of such earnings.
South Dakota Code Section 21-18-1.
And that ain't all because
Section 21-19-17 of the South Dakota Code * EXEMPTS ALL EARNINGS of the debtor that are immediately necessary for the support of the debtor and his family are exempt from attachment. Which includes money needed for rent, food, medical expenses, and clothing.
However, let me caution you. Even though your state's exemption laws are more liberal from the standpoint of the debtor than many (including federal) there are statutory procedures and conditions required of the debtor that are written in such a jargon as tend to confuse. (Example: Read SDCL 21-19-17 quoted below) My only purpose here is to alert you of their existence. For an accurate analysis I suggest that you consult with a South Dakota lawyer that is familiar with them.
__________________
With regard to the repossession and sale of the vehicle.
You need to be aware that under South Dakota law in order for the secured creditor to obtain a deficiency judgment it is required to establish that it disposed of the collateral in a
"commercially reasonable manner".( See:
South Dakota Uniform Commercial Code Chapter 57A Chapter 9 Secured Transactions 57A-9-610. Disposition of collateral after default.)
Unfortunately from a debtor's point of view, the courts have interpreted the words
"commercially reasonable manner" much to the favor of the creditor.
We don't know the status of Ford's demand for a deficiency judgment as all you've mention is that they are taking her to court. But in view of the apparent discrepancy in what you claim as the market vale and the sale price it may be worth a timely challenge of the lawsuit on the grounds that the vehicle wasn't sold in a commercially reasonable manner.
_________________
[*]
SDCL 21-19-17. Application and order for immediate release of items of definite value--Earnings necessary for support of debtor and family. If claim for exemptions is made under §§ 21-19-9 to 21-19-13, inclusive, the claimant may, upon three days' notice to the creditor, apply to the court for an order for immediate release from said levy of any property claimed as exempt in said claim, as to which property the valuation is definite and fixed and not open to dispute, meaning such items as money, bank accounts, earnings owing to debtor, and similar items. Upon hearing such application the court may order the immediate release from such levy of such items if satisfied that the same are clearly within the limitations of the additional exemptions as provided by law, the amount so set aside to be charged against the total amount of additional exemptions to be allowed to the claimant.
Such releases where clearly within the limitations of the additional exemptions shall always be ordered when applied for as to earnings of debtor and similar items immediately necessary for the support of debtor and his family.
