Washington State garnishment

[hijoelduce]

How many times can they do a Writ of Garnishment in Washington State on one debt?

I was under the assumption that it was a one time deal for 60 days?

The reason I'm asking is I had one back in 2010 and the same collector has just filed another one within the last week

 

[latigo]

How many times can they do a Writ of Garnishment in Washington State on one debt?

I was under the assumption that it was a one time deal for 60 days?

The reason I'm asking is I had one back in 2010 and the same collector has just filed another one within the last week

I think your confusion over the "60 day deal" has to do with someone's misinterpretation of RCW Section 6.27.350 - " Continuing lien on earnings — When lien becomes effective — Termination"

What the Washington statute provides is that a garnishment upon a judgment debtor's unpaid wages continues as a lien on those earnings for "sixty days after the effective date of the writ of garnishment.

Obviously its purpose is to cover earnings earned over a 60 day span. But there is nothing in Washington's garnishment laws that prevents a judgment creditor from serving successive writs of garnishment other than the satisfaction of the judgment or its expiration. For instance say you left employment with the garnisheed employer and secured other employment.

Your thinking seems to be that the judgment creditor has but one shot at garnishing wages and that isn't true. Its just that each garnishment is only effective for the 60 days.

(This is not to say that Washington does not allow continuing garnishments for certain obligations, e. g., child support arrearages as do many states.)

 

[hijoelduce]

OK that does make sense. But I need to find the original writ from 2010 and I remember it saying a a one time deal. I could be wrong.
The only thing that still makes me a it mad it that the origional court case was filed 7 years after I defaulted and when I was working with them.

I had a serious question they never answered and after court the lawyer told me that he didn't answer the question directly, cause the judge would have thrown the case out.

I know I may need to write a letter to them asking how to close this case out. Cause calling them doesn't show any proof

 

[latigo]

OK that does make sense. But I need to find the original writ from 2010 and I remember it saying a a one time deal. I could be wrong.
The only thing that still makes me a it mad it that the origional court case was filed 7 years after I defaulted and when I was working with them.

I had a serious question they never answered and after court the lawyer told me that he didn't answer the question directly, cause the judge would have thrown the case out.

I know I may need to write a letter to them asking how to close this case out. Cause calling them doesn't show any proof

Fuhgetaboudit!

The case IS closed! But the judgment IS NOT! It is an active pain in your rear for another 6 years, plus the pain can be renewed for another 10.

What you are contemplating is trying to reopen the case and have it and the judgment "thrown out". And that ain't going to happen; not even if you continue to send off letters about your unanswered "serious question" until the country runs out of ink and trees and there's a slew of trees in Washington. Ink, I'm not sure.

 

[hijoelduce]

So it looks like he is doing another writ against me.
So my best hope of getting this finalized is to ask for a payoff?

I'm just mad that they filed the case a month past the 7 year limit, did a writ back in 2010. Today I got a letter from them saying they have tried to get in contact with me.
Well the last contact was the writ in 2010. I could swear they even told me on the phone it was a one time deal

 

[latigo]

So it looks like he is doing another writ against me.
So my best hope of getting this finalized is to ask for a payoff?

I'm just mad that they filed the case a month past the 7 year limit, did a writ back in 2010. Today I got a letter from them saying they have tried to get in contact with me.
Well the last contact was the writ in 2010. I could swear they even told me on the phone it was a one time deal

"7 year limit"? Wrong.

The Washington statute of limitations on a contract in writing is 6 years; not 7 years And that clock starts to run each time a credit is made to the account or the obligor acknowledges the debt in writing. Plus it can toll if the debtor absents himself from the state.

So its difficult to believe that your creditor would have waited all those years without you making a payment.

I can't speak for the rules in Washington, but in many states the defense of the running of the statute of limitations must be pleaded (meaning asserted in written response to the complaint) as an affirmative defense or it is deemed waived.

You are beating on a horse that knows it is dead and you're still wondering why it won't get up and go.

 

[Proserpina]

Latigo, I'm clarifying something just for OP's purpose - you're dead right but some either aren't aware of or misunderstand the SOL and what it means. And yes, the SOL must be asserted as a defense in WA.

OP, the SOL really only comes into play once they try to sue you. There's your affirmative defense right there. As latigo wrote though, that SOL can be tolled.

You can read more here:

http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/debtors-rights-dealing-with-collection-agenci#f

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/collectionagency/colrights.html

And just because they can't sue, doesn't necessarily mean they can't try to collect anyway:

http://www.atg.wa.gov/BlogPost.aspx?id=19230#.Uy4AjvldUTo

 

[hijoelduce]

I was wrong on the 7 year part. It was 6. Got my dates mixed up and I know that the case is closed and that's that.
What irritates me is that when somebody from there office tells you that this garnishment (back in 2010) is a "one time thing".
Those where her exact words and now they are doing it again?

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. But in my opinion if a person from a law firm tells me something. Those words might as well came out of the lawyers mouth.