+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Linda8481 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8

    garnishment of checking account help!!

    What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? IL

    I went to cash a check and my checking acount had a zero balance. The bank said that the state of IL garnished my checking account for a judgement for a credit card. My question is: Do they only get what was in there and that is it or can they take anything that goes in after that? I don't know anything about this. HELP!!!!!!!!! Please advise me. What do I do now?
  2. #2
    justalayman is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the ether
    Posts
    34,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda8481
    What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? IL

    I went to cash a check and my checking acount had a zero balance. The bank said that the state of IL garnished my checking account for a judgement for a credit card. My question is: Do they only get what was in there and that is it or can they take anything that goes in after that? I don't know anything about this. HELP!!!!!!!!! Please advise me. What do I do now?
    They get to continue taking until the judgement is paid in full.

    Pay the judgement (presuming it is legit)
  3. #3
    Chien is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,552
    Originally Posted by justalayman
    They get to continue taking until the judgement is paid in full.
    OP - Given the question that you asked, I don't believe that the answer you received is correct, but I am not certain of the finite limitations. Unless justalayman can cite authority, you may find it necessary to speak to your local sheriff/marshal or the court.

    As I read the question, you're asking if the garnishment summons, which already resulted in seizure of funds, is limited to those funds or is on-going. The answer from justalayman implies that the levy is on-going until the judgment is satisfied, and that's not correct in any state, to my knowledge. A reading of the relevant Illinois statutes suggests that it's limited to those funds and states:
    "The judgment or balance due thereon becomes a lien on the indebtedness and other property held by the garnishee at the time of the service of garnishment summons and remains a lien thereon pending the garnishment proceeding."
    but I strongly urge you to confirm the limitations, because they differ state-to-state.

    In my state, a similar procedure would only affect the funds in the account at the time the levy was imposed; anything that came in after would be unaffected. Some other states allow enforcement to affect deposits for as long as 20 days. To me, the language cited indicates that your state is like mine, but I suggest that, if you don't get a definitive answer here, that you check to make sure. In my state, there are no rules preventing the judgment creditor from immediately initiating a new levy, and that possibility may be your real concern.

    Now, how/why is Illionois levying a bank account for a credit card debt?
  4. #4
    racer72 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    14,121
    The OP knew there was a lawsuit against him/her and did nothing. Except for a few rare circumstances, garnishments just don't happen for no reason. The state of Illinois did not garnish the bank account, they gave the authority through their court system. Chien is incorrect in his assumptions, a lein has been placed on the account and any subsequent deposits will be held till the judgment is satisfied.

    What the OP needs to do is find out who sued and find out if the suit was properly served. You can go to the courthouse that granted the judgment and find out. Come back when you have that information.
    If you feel my answer is rude, mean, snarky or in anyway not to your liking, I did my job. You don't need to tell me.

    No private messages, I do not reply to them.
  5. #5
    zippysgoddess is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,270
    justalayman and racer72 are correct, they will, and can legally, continue to take anything you have put in there until they have the full amount owed them.
  6. #6
    Chien is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,552
    Originally Posted by zippysgoddess
    justalayman and racer72 are correct, they will, and can legally, continue to take anything you have put in there until they have the full amount owed them.
    Yes, of course, as long as the judgment is unsatisfied and as long as the existing non-wage garnishment is valid.

    I read the OP's question as being directed to whether an Illinois bank garnishment is a "one shot" deal or whether it operates on the subject account forever, once imposed. I still do read it that way, and I still haven't found that answer, except to the extent that the Illinois statute says property held by the garnishee at the time of the service of garnishment summons . I've seen nothing to contradict that here.

    In any state, the judgment creditor can pursue an unsatisfied judgment as long as the judgment itself is viable. I consider my state a "one shot" state. Levy on an account and you get what's there when the levy hits. If something comes in the next day, it's not frozen. The judgment creditor must start a new levy. Other states allow the writ/levy/garnishment to continue for a longer period of time. But I know of no state that permits a bank account to be subject to the same enforcement order from the date that's it's first imposed. Are all responses to this thread, save mine, to the effect that that's how it works in Illinois? - because I think that was the question asked. Fine, I don't know all states and that's not the way I read the statutes (incidentally, 735 ILCS 5/12-701 through 735 ILCS 5/12-719). I also have no vested interest in the bank account. If it is, can someone please cite to the authority?

    On the much more fundamental level of "yeah, thay can come after you as long as the judgment is unsatisfied", we're not in disagreement ('tho I think that's still too facile, to be much value to the OP).
  7. #7
    justalayman is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the ether
    Posts
    34,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Chien

    I read the OP's question as being directed to whether an Illinois bank
    On the much more fundamental level of "yeah, thay can come after you as long as the judgment is unsatisfied", we're not in disagreement ('tho I think that's still too facile, to be much value to the OP).
    Oh you and those details. As far as a "one shot deal" you could very well be right BUT that doesn't prevent the creditor to initiate another levy. In actuallity I believe that a lein would be in place that would stay until judgement is fulfilled.

    From the OP's post he/she seemed to think (at least my take on it) that the judgement might be fulfilled with what was attached. I do realize that is reading in alot but then again the OP seemed to be surprised of the action at all. Maybe a bit naive.
    "Do they only get what was in there and that is it or can they take anything that goes in after that?"
  8. #8
    Chien is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,552
    I have called my state a "one shot" state, because a bank levy affects funds in the custody and control of the garnishee at the date and time that the levy is imposed. Those funds are frozen and potentially the property of the judgment creditor, subject only to claims of exemption and superior creditors' claims; "later arriving funds" are not affected. I'm aware of other states permitting a recovery order (call it writ, garnishment or whatever) to operate for a longer period of time, but I know nothing over 30 days.

    The quoted Illinois statute would accurately descibe my state's approach to levies (property held at the time of service). In my state, the answer to the OP's question - can they take anything that goes in after that?- would be "no, not without a new levy" (but, it there's a new levy, then yes, everything that's non-exempt). My question - the OP's question - is does the Illinois statute mean more? The response posted by racer72 is "yes". If so, what's the authority? I'm not arguing; I simply want to know from those who subscribe to a different statutory construction.

    I'm genuinely interested because, if the responses from racer72 and justalayman imply that a bank garnishment, once imposed, operates until the judgment is satisfied (and that's what was said), hypothetically, a non-wage garnishment in Illinois outlives a judgment. For example, if a judgment has been renewed as often as permitted by law, is unsatisfied notwithstanding and a bank garnishment is imposed in the final hours of the life of the judgment, those responses say it continues to affect the bank account (or did I miss a "but if" or "except when"?). That's a very interesting and unique proposition, and I'd like to better understand that statutory right.
    Last edited by Chien; 12-19-2005 at 04:10 AM.
  9. #9
    Chien is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,552
    Originally Posted by justalayman
    Oh you and those details.
    Details? Ok, Ok. If all of this was about "just tell the OP to pay up and skip the nickle-dime BS", we're operating on different wavelengths. I thought it was inportant to give accurate information. That's why I'm still asking about yours and racer72's. If it's right, I want to know - for me. If it was "close", this isn't horseshoes - no prize.

    If you actually "believe that a lein would be in place that would stay until judgement is fulfilled.", I just want to know the authority. If you're both guessing or answering a question other than the one asked, doesn't it seem fair to let the OP know? She just might have thought that you meant all that.

    Look, at least you acknowledged your "presumption". racer says my assumptions are wrong, but I don't find any in my response.
    “The OP knew there was a lawsuit against him/her and did nothing.” - that’s not stated in the post, but it’s a presumption, not an assumption.
    “The state of Illinois did not garnish the bank account, they gave the authority through their court system.” - again not stated in the post, but, since it’s stated as fact, it too is a presumption, not an assumption (although I suspect it’s a pretty safe guess).
    “What the OP needs to do is find out who sued and find out if the suit was properly served”. - now that’s an assumption - or maybe just advice.
  10. #10
    Kanchazi is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    211
    chien are you saying that each time they want to take money from a bank account, they have to get new papers each time. In other words if you owe $10,000 and you get 500.00 into your bank account each month, then they have to get 20 levys, one for each month.
  11. #11
    Chien is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,552
    Originally Posted by Kanchazi
    chien are you saying that each time they want to take money from a bank account, they have to get new papers each time. In other words if you owe $10,000 and you get 500.00 into your bank account each month, then they have to get 20 levys, one for each month.
    Yes, in my state, that's how it would work. It would actually be about 25 levies, since you'd need an additional 4+ to recover accrued post-judgment interest over 20 months, together with post-judgment costs (there's a fee for each of those levies).

    But four levies is the maximum that I've known an account to stay open and vulnerable, once enforcement started, so I think the question is more academic than realistic. If an account holder left an account open for two years of monthly levies . . . .I don't know. Too surreal to contemplate.

    With regard to the discussion had on this thread yesterday, I've been in contact with the civil divison of the Illinois State Attorney's Office and with a colleague at the Illinois Creditor Bar Association. If the OP meant her question as I read it, I'm comfortable with the accuracy of my response. I now don't expect contradictory authority to be forthcoming. The following is a partial excerpt from an email from . . . . of the ICBA:

    "Dear XXXXXXXX,

    I think you have come to the right place for your answers. I write on and teach this very subject for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

    A non-wage garnishment is effective for all cleared and non-exempt funds in the control of the garnishee as of the moment of service. After deposited or cleared funds are not attached."

    The added emphasis is mine, because it's not correct that "any subsequent deposits will be held till the judgment is satisfied."
    Last edited by Chien; 12-19-2005 at 02:26 PM.
  12. #12
    justalayman is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the ether
    Posts
    34,442
    Chien you are the man(?) Did you also happen to notice if the OP has the ability to claim exemption on certain funds?
  13. #13
    Chien is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,552
    In the abstract, the right to claim exemptions always exists. To my reading, there's nothing in the post to suggest obvious possibilities, but I hope that she recognizes and acts on the right, if she can - and if she's even still around the forum.

    Illinois has an additonal method for reachin assets called a Citation to Discover Assets (similar sounding to an asset exam or debtor hearing but significantly different in operation). My understanding is that many creditors' attorneys consider it preferable to a non-wage garnishment. We're getting too far afield from the original post, in my opinion, but, until we know what method was used to hit the bank, it's even more difficult to discuss exemption procedures. What can be exempted is controlled by state law. How it's done differs.

Similar Threads

  1. Checking account garnishment
    By theohiostate in forum Debt Collections
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2010, 11:43 PM
  2. checking account garnishment
    By ninjamom2 in forum Debt Collections
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 05:08 PM
  3. Checking account garnishment
    By devota in forum Debt Collections
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 03:17 PM
  4. checking account garnishment
    By cairns5 in forum Debt Collections
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-13-2006, 12:35 PM
  5. checking account garnishment
    By BoscoKatz in forum Debt Collections
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-19-2004, 06:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.