14 year old debt now being garnished

[samzip27]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Calif.
My wife just received a notice that her wages were to be garnished. This was something that was not settled over 14 years ago. The creditor was not on any of our credit reports, thus was never taken care of. Is there a recourse for such an old debt. I don't want to sound like a deadbeat but, 14 years?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by samzip27

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Calif.
My wife just received a notice that her wages were to be garnished. This was something that was not settled over 14 years ago. The creditor was not on any of our credit reports, thus was never taken care of. Is there a recourse for such an old debt. I don't want to sound like a deadbeat but, 14 years?

The debt is no longer 14 years old. It is only as old as the default judgment against your wife. You need to contact the court to find out about the case against her. I suggest meeting with a local attorney.

[Chien]

Zigner is right about the debt being as old as the judgment, but that’s where your post is confusing. For there to be a garnishment, at some point a judgment was taken. If a judgment was taken 14 years ago, it was renewed, because your state’s judgments are only good for 10 years before they must be renewed.

The garnishment notice should show the court and case number. You should be able to go online to the court’s site to enter the case number and review the history of the case. Doing that might help any conversation that you have with an attorney and it might obviate the need. What you expect by “recourse” is not clear. If the debt existed and a judgment exists now, there is very little that you can do, aside from pay it, unless you have grounds to vacate and, if a judgment was taken and then renewed, that’s very unlikely.

[samzip27]

Than you for your input. I just heard about it today and have not been able to dig in as of yet.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Chien

Zigner is right about the debt being as old as the judgment, but that’s where your post is confusing. For there to be a garnishment, at some point a judgment was taken. If a judgment was taken 14 years ago, it was renewed, because your state’s judgments are only good for 10 years before they must be renewed.

The garnishment notice should show the court and case number. You should be able to go online to the court’s site to enter the case number and review the history of the case. Doing that might help any conversation that you have with an attorney and it might obviate the need. What you expect by “recourse” is not clear. If the debt existed and a judgment exists now, there is very little that you can do, aside from pay it, unless you have grounds to vacate and, if a judgment was taken and then renewed, that’s very unlikely.

I apologize if I misunderstood. I read it as the original debt was from 14 years ago and the creditor obtained a default judgment recently.

[Chien]

No need to apologize to me. I can't figure out whether it's "old debt - new judgment" or "old debt - old judgment" either.

The OP should figure it out. I assumed that it had to be "old debt - old judgment" because a judgment 10 years after the SOL expired is really pushing the bounds of credulity for me.

[samzip27]

Sorry if I have jumped the gun for possible solutions. My wife just found out at work and I started the question before I have the info and paperwork in my hands. I will report back with some details when I see her tonight.

[samzip27]

I have a "Earnings withholding order" that says a bunch but the judgmentwas entered in the court on 6/20/1995. She just received the pape today. It does have a date of 11/13/2008. How can they come ou of the woodwork after 14 years? Is there a SOL?

[Chien]

There’s an SOL on the judgment. It had to have been renewed before 6/20/05. It’s good for 10 more years from the renewal date and then it expires, but that shouldn’t be terribly relevant with a garnishment order in place now.

Again, reviewing the case record, which you should be able to do online (or by calling the court – a visit may not be necessary) should give you the additional information you may want.

They’ve found an employer and they can reach community property. You might want to look into the possibility of negotiating a settlement. I wouldn’t be overly optimistic, because they have you in a corner, but the number they’re trying to collect has to be sizable relative to what was originally owed. There’s 13 years of interest at 10% tacked on, and it’s earning interest as it's collected. They may be willing to forego some of that.

[CC53]

Originally Posted by Chien

There’s an SOL on the judgment. It had to have been renewed before 6/20/05. It’s good for 10 more years from the renewal date and then it expires, but that shouldn’t be terribly relevant with a garnishment order in place now.

Again, reviewing the case record, which you should be able to do online (or by calling the court – a visit may not be necessary) should give you the additional information you may want.

They’ve found an employer and they can reach community property. You might want to look into the possibility of negotiating a settlement. I wouldn’t be overly optimistic, because they have you in a corner, but the number they’re trying to collect has to be sizable relative to what was originally owed. There’s 13 years of interest at 10% tacked on, and it’s earning interest as it's collected. They may be willing to forego some of that.

Do creditors intentionally sit on old judgments so they will accumulate interest? If not, why would someone wait 13 years to file a wage garnishment?

[Chien]

Do creditors intentionally sit on old judgments so they will accumulate interest?

Not any that I know of. It would be ill-advised. Collectibility declines over time. At that point, the chance of success might be lower than 1-3%. Also, the last time I looked at the data (quite some time ago), in the OP’s state, 25% of the population re-locates approximately every 8 months. Maybe it’s down to 6 or up to 10, but you do the math.

If not, why would someone wait 13 years to file a wage garnishment?

New debt owner is more aggressive than predecessors?
(New) job or (new) location creates new records in new databases facilitating search?
Now it’s your turn to guess.

Public record databases that exist today were not imaginable or accessible and complete 13 years ago. Technology to “scrub” large portfolios and match search criteria didn’t exist 13 years ago. Collectors subscribe to these. Google and social networking sites didn’t exist 13 years ago. Did you ever Google yourself? Do you think private investigators look at Facebook and Linkedin to find friends from high school?

[CC53]

Originally Posted by Chien

Do creditors intentionally sit on old judgments so they will accumulate interest?

Not any that I know of. It would be ill-advised. Collectibility declines over time. At that point, the chance of success might be lower than 1-3%. Also, the last time I looked at the data (quite some time ago), in the OP’s state, 25% of the population re-locates approximately every 8 months. Maybe it’s down to 6 or up to 10, but you do the math.

If not, why would someone wait 13 years to file a wage garnishment?

New debt owner is more aggressive than predecessors?
(New) job or (new) location creates new records in new databases facilitating search?
Now it’s your turn to guess.

Public record databases that exist today were not imaginable or accessible and complete 13 years ago. Technology to “scrub” large portfolios and match search criteria didn’t exist 13 years ago. Collectors subscribe to these. Google and social networking sites didn’t exist 13 years ago. Did you ever Google yourself? Do you think private investigators look at Facebook and Linkedin to find friends from high school?

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.