Need information on a till tap

[skylynne]

If you are able to find a telephone number through which you can actually talk with someone in the Paypal garnishment or levy department, then please post what number you called and what you said to them that got you to someone in the Paypal garnishment or levy department.

Tried for hours to get a phone number for PayPal's legal department, was told over and over the only way to contact the legal dept. is by mail.

My debtor filed a challenge to garnishment and I will have to attend a hearing at the court house. The basis for his challenge is that most of the money in his Paypal account is customers shipping money and it does not belong to him. It is my understanding that any money in the debtor's account is garnishable.

 

[tranquility]

Garnishable property generally

Except as specifically provided in ORS 18.600 (Definitions) to 18.850 (Challenge to garnishment form), a writ of garnishment delivered to a garnishee garnishes all personal property of the debtor, including but not limited to property in safe deposit boxes, stocks, wages, monetary obligations owing to the debtor that are then in existence whether due or to become due, property held on expired and unexpired bailments and leases, and property held by the garnishee pursuant to a security interest granted by the debtor to the garnishee. A writ of garnishment acts to garnish all property of the debtor possessed by the garnishee, all property of the debtor over which the garnishee has control and all property of the debtor that is in the custody of the garnishee. If a person other than the debtor has an interest in the garnished property, the writ of garnishment acts only to garnish the interest of the debtor in the property. [2001 c.249 §7]

So, while it MAY not be generally garnishable property, under section 18.615 (above), make sure they prove it is (Per ORS 18.850):

THIS FORM MAY BE USED BY THE DEBTOR ONLY FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:

(1) To claim such exemptions from garnishment as are permitted by law.
(2) To assert that property is not garnishable property under ORS 18.618 (Property not subject to garnishment).
(3) To assert that the amount specified in the writ of garnishment as being subject to garnishment is greater than the total amount owed.

Neither 2 or 3 are not correct, so they need to claim an exemption in that it was not the personal property "of the debtor". Make sure they produce some written evidence for every bit of exemption claimed showing the security agreement or contract stating they are holding it for their clients. You might want them to show the bills of lading and exact amounts deposited for EACH claim of exemption they are making. Don't let them use some general theory of exemption for shipping, make them prove up every claim. Exactly. To the penny.

 

[Mark Maroon]

My debtor filed a challenge to garnishment and I will have to attend a hearing at the court house. The basis for his challenge is that most of the money in his Paypal account is customers shipping money and it does not belong to him. It is my understanding that any money in the debtor's account is garnishable.

OK, I will bite, what does "customers shipping money" mean?

But regardless of what "customers shipping money" means, it doesn't really matter to the garnishment. What the money is in the account for doesn't matter to the garnishment. It's not an IOLTA type account. All that matters is if the account is in his name. Otherwise everyone could avoid any garnishment simply by claiming that the money in their account is not actually theirs but they are simply holding it for someone else, or they are about to return it to someone else, or they are about to use it to pay someone else for something, etcetera.

 

[tranquility]

OK, I will bite, what does "customers shipping money" mean?

But regardless of what "customers shipping money" means, it doesn't really matter to the garnishment. What the money is in the account for doesn't matter to the garnishment. It's not an IOLTA type account. All that matters is if the account is in his name. Otherwise everyone could avoid any garnishment simply by claiming that the money in their account is not actually theirs but they are simply holding it for someone else, or they are about to return it to someone else, or they are about to use it to pay someone else for something, etcetera.

No, not by simply "claiming" it, but by proving it. While there is a presumption all the money in his account is his, the presumption can be rebutted. (As to the about to pay someone else for something, that would still be the debtor's money until ownership transfers.)

 

[Mark Maroon]

No, not by simply "claiming" it, but by proving it. While there is a presumption all the money in his account is his, the presumption can be rebutted. (As to the about to pay someone else for something, that would still be the debtor's money until ownership transfers.)

Yes, the presumption can be rebutted, but I don't think that even if you could PROVE that the money was in your account because it was your "customers shipping money" that this would be sufficient. Again, that's like me proving in writing that I promised my girlfriend that the $10,000.00 in my account was hers - so therefore you can't have it via a garnishment of my account. Just because you can prove that the money in your account has something to do with your customer (eg. you are holding the money in your account for some reason for your customer, eg. it's your customers shipping money) cannot possibly be sufficient can it?

The statute says that "if a person other than the debtor has an interest in the garnished property, the writ of garnishment acts only to garnish the interest of the debtor in the property". But the "has an interest in" is not the same thing as someone proving that they sure are "interested in that money".

 

[tranquility]

Yes, the presumption can be rebutted, but I don't think that even if you could PROVE that the money was in your account because it was your "customers shipping money" that this would be sufficient. Again, that's like me proving in writing that I promised my girlfriend that the $10,000.00 in my account was hers - so therefore you can't have it via a garnishment of my account. Just because you can prove that the money in your account has something to do with your customer (eg. you are holding the money in your account for some reason for your customer, eg. it's your customers shipping money) cannot possibly be sufficient can it?

The statute says that "if a person other than the debtor has an interest in the garnished property, the writ of garnishment acts only to garnish the interest of the debtor in the property". But the "has an interest in" is not the same thing as someone proving that they sure are "interested in that money".

While I generally agree, shipping costs may be a bit different. IF the debtor has arraigned for shipping and IF he has bills of lading for the shipping and IF the amount collected is the same as the tariffs (We are talking about cars after all.), it could very well be considered no longer the debtor's. I agree, that is a lot of if's. The judge will accept the argument about shipping costs or not. If he does, the OP must force the debtor to not just give some general denial, but to prove each and every one in detail. I agree completely with the thought the debtor is just trying to get out from under a rock and this is the best he can come up with. But, it is an argument that must be addressed by the OP as it is plausible.

 

[Mark Maroon]

While I generally agree, shipping costs may be a bit different. IF the debtor has arraigned for shipping and IF he has bills of lading for the shipping and IF the amount collected is the same as the tariffs (We are talking about cars after all.), it could very well be considered no longer the debtor's. I agree, that is a lot of if's. The judge will accept the argument about shipping costs or not. If he does, the OP must force the debtor to not just give some general denial, but to prove each and every one in detail. I agree completely with the thought the debtor is just trying to get out from under a rock and this is the best he can come up with. But, it is an argument that must be addressed by the OP as it is plausible.

The OP said that the PayPal garnishment was related to the defendant's "moderate amount of sales on Ebay". I could be wrong, but I assumed that was separate and independent from the defendant's used car sales.

But I still don't think it matters. Even if the defendant can prove that some guy named "John Doe" paid the defendant "shipping costs" so that the defendant could ship "John Doe" something, that money should still be completely subject to the garnishment. Let's say that you have a business, and as part of your business people pay you to do something. You put the money in your business bank account while you arrange to do the work that you were paid to do. Then before you can do it, someone garnishes your business bank account. You can't claim that the money isn't subject to the garnishment because it was paid to you in exchange for you doing something which you haven't done yet. I could be wrong, but I just can't believe that it could possibly be relevant.

I think that your insistence on proving details is "playing in their sandbox". In my opinion, the whole sandbox should be made irrelevant (if possible).

But either way, you are right, the defendant can contest the garnishment, and the OP should be prepared to make any and all arguments (definitely including the ones that you suggest).

 

[single317dad]

My debtor filed a challenge to garnishment and I will have to attend a hearing at the court house. The basis for his challenge is that most of the money in his Paypal account is customers shipping money and it does not belong to him. It is my understanding that any money in the debtor's account is garnishable.

I think I can clear up the "customers' shipping money" questions, if nothing else.

What he's claiming is that the money in his Paypal account is the total of payments made by customers, and that he has expenses yet to be incurred from that account in order to fulfill the customers' orders. The simplest explanation for this is something I do all day, every day:

Customer buys an item from eBay or equivalent. Customer pays item price + shipping cost (whether separately priced or lumped in as "free shipping", there's still a portion of the payment I've planned on using for delivery expenses). Paypal takes their cut right away. I use the money deposited by the customer to pay for postage (that cost is immediately withdrawn by the delivery company as soon as I print the label). What's left in the account is apportioned by me to pay my eBay fees, operational expenses, and my profit.

So in a nutshell this guy is saying, "Hey, I haven't shipped my customers' items yet; if you take my money from Paypal I won't have any way to pay for postage to ship their items."

 

[Mark Maroon]

I think I can clear up the "customers' shipping money" questions, if nothing else.

What he's claiming is that the money in his Paypal account is the total of payments made by customers, and that he has expenses yet to be incurred from that account in order to fulfill the customers' orders. The simplest explanation for this is something I do all day, every day:

Customer buys an item from eBay or equivalent. Customer pays item price + shipping cost (whether separately priced or lumped in as "free shipping", there's still a portion of the payment I've planned on using for delivery expenses). Paypal takes their cut right away. I use the money deposited by the customer to pay for postage (that cost is immediately withdrawn by the delivery company as soon as I print the label). What's left in the account is apportioned by me to pay my eBay fees, operational expenses, and my profit.

So in a nutshell this guy is saying, "Hey, I haven't shipped my customers' items yet; if you take my money from Paypal I won't have any way to pay for postage to ship their items."

Right, that's what I figured we were talking about. The defendant's customers paid the defendant to ship them something that they purchased through eBay. The money went into the defendant's PayPal account. I just can't believe that could possibly matter.

 

[skylynne]

I think I can clear up the "customers' shipping money" questions, if nothing else.

What he's claiming is that the money in his Paypal account is the total of payments made by customers, and that he has expenses yet to be incurred from that account in order to fulfill the customers' orders. The simplest explanation for this is something I do all day, every day:

Customer buys an item from eBay or equivalent. Customer pays item price + shipping cost (whether separately priced or lumped in as "free shipping", there's still a portion of the payment I've planned on using for delivery expenses). Paypal takes their cut right away. I use the money deposited by the customer to pay for postage (that cost is immediately withdrawn by the delivery company as soon as I print the label). What's left in the account is apportioned by me to pay my eBay fees, operational expenses, and my profit.

So in a nutshell this guy is saying, "Hey, I haven't shipped my customers' items yet; if you take my money from Paypal I won't have any way to pay for postage to ship their items."

This is exactly what is happening. Thank you for explaining it so well. The sales on Ebay are separate and independent of the used car sales.

 

[skylynne]

Right, that's what I figured we were talking about. The defendant's customers paid the defendant to ship them something that they purchased through eBay. The money went into the defendant's PayPal account. I just can't believe that could possibly matter.

The debtor lost his challenge to garnishment today in court. I didn't have to say a word, just let debtor run at the mouth with his BS.

I have not received anything from Paypal and they have not contacted me at all, so I have no idea how much money is in his account or how much I will receive. Do the courts send any paper work to Paypal letting them know that the garnishment is good?

Thank you Mark for all your help.

 

[Mark Maroon]

The debtor lost his challenge to garnishment today in court. I didn't have to say a word, just let debtor run at the mouth with his BS.

I have not received anything from Paypal and they have not contacted me at all, so I have no idea how much money is in his account or how much I will receive. Do the courts send any paper work to Paypal letting them know that the garnishment is good?

Thank you Mark for all your help.

You would have to ask your court clerks if they or anyone else related to the court will be sending anything to the garnishee, but no matter how they respond, if I were you, I would send paypal a copy of the court's decision/order and ask paypal to provide me with an accounting of how much is being held in the defendants paypal account at this moment.

Don't forget to send paypal a separate subpoena or interrogatory asking them to provide the name of the defendant's bank where they settle or send funds from the defendant's paypal account. That way you can separately garnish the defendant's bank account.

 

[aldaron]

Mark try this link**************************** http://www.rexxfield.com/2013/08/paypal-inc-how-to-contact-paypal-coms-legal-department-to-serve-a-civil-subpoena-order-or-criminal-warrant/

 

[Mark Maroon]

Mark try this link**************************** http://www.rexxfield.com/2013/08/paypal-inc-how-to-contact-paypal-coms-legal-department-to-serve-a-civil-subpoena-order-or-criminal-warrant/

I called the telephone number in your link (888-361-0687). It is not the PayPal legal department, and all they could do was give me the address for PayPal.