What is the name of your state? Tennessee
My mom called me today to tell me her entire check had been garnished. Turns out it was her bank account that was garnished. The debt is to a children's hospital and she has been making monthly payments, as agreed, for the past few years. It is the minimum payment of like $20/month but it is still the agreed upon payment.
Well apparently they took her to court without her knowing (No papers served even via certified mail) and they received the judgment. Took the judgment and contacted her employer. Instead of going for a garnishment on her paycheck they went for a garnishment on her bank account that the employer said the money was being direct deposited too.
Well I did some googling and found United States Code: Title 15, Chapter 41, Subchapter II - § 1673. Restriction on garnishment. From what I understand it says that they can only take up to 25% of her weekly earnings and that have to leave her with 30 times the minimum wage each week.
But if they garnish a bank account they can take the whole thing (up to the debt).
So my thing is (and my law experience pretty much is limited to Google and Boston legal )
If they contacted the company before doing a garnishment to see if she had direct deposit then on the day of the direct deposit had the bank freeze the account, then wouldn't that mean that they are circumventing the laws that are in place to protect her rights?
I figure she has some sort of recourse if she can prove that she wasn't served any papers for the court date and had no idea there was a court date. I just want to know if what they are doing is actually violating her rights.
Because it doesn't seem fair that the law states they can only take $62.50 out of her $250 per week pay (payable every 2 weeks) so instead of taking that route the hit her bank account on the day of direct deposit so that they can get the full $500 (well minus taxes).
Any thoughts?
My mom called me today to tell me her entire check had been garnished. Turns out it was her bank account that was garnished. The debt is to a children's hospital and she has been making monthly payments, as agreed, for the past few years. It is the minimum payment of like $20/month but it is still the agreed upon payment.
Well apparently they took her to court without her knowing (No papers served even via certified mail) and they received the judgment. Took the judgment and contacted her employer. Instead of going for a garnishment on her paycheck they went for a garnishment on her bank account that the employer said the money was being direct deposited too.
Well I did some googling and found United States Code: Title 15, Chapter 41, Subchapter II - § 1673. Restriction on garnishment. From what I understand it says that they can only take up to 25% of her weekly earnings and that have to leave her with 30 times the minimum wage each week.
But if they garnish a bank account they can take the whole thing (up to the debt).
So my thing is (and my law experience pretty much is limited to Google and Boston legal )
If they contacted the company before doing a garnishment to see if she had direct deposit then on the day of the direct deposit had the bank freeze the account, then wouldn't that mean that they are circumventing the laws that are in place to protect her rights?
I figure she has some sort of recourse if she can prove that she wasn't served any papers for the court date and had no idea there was a court date. I just want to know if what they are doing is actually violating her rights.
Because it doesn't seem fair that the law states they can only take $62.50 out of her $250 per week pay (payable every 2 weeks) so instead of taking that route the hit her bank account on the day of direct deposit so that they can get the full $500 (well minus taxes).
Any thoughts?