Company Ignored Wage Garnishment Order (California)

[Thelitigator]

What is the name of your state? California

The Los Angeles sheriff served an agent for accepting service of process in Los Angeles for a corporation located in Georgia. They were served on June 1, 2017. Today it's August 7 and there has not been any response back for the wage garnishment order for the debtor. I understand that the corporation may be liable for the entire debt of the debtor when they ignore a wage garnishment order. My question is how do I file an order to show cause against the corporation when I don't have an active lawsuit against them?
Thanks,

 

[adjusterjack]

It's a post judgment process that runs with your lawsuit.

Unfortunately, we cannot give you step by step instructions.

You're going to have to figure that out for yourself or hire a lawyer.

CA has a nice self help website. Maybe there is something in there:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp.htm

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state? California

The Los Angeles sheriff served an agent for accepting service of process in Los Angeles for a corporation located in Georgia. They were served on June 1, 2017. Today it's August 7 and there has not been any response back for the wage garnishment order for the debtor. I understand that the corporation may be liable for the entire debt of the debtor when they ignore a wage garnishment order. My question is how do I file an order to show cause against the corporation when I don't have an active lawsuit against them?
Thanks,

First with respect to the garnishee corporation's liability for failing to honor the garnishment. It is possible that the recalcitrant garnishee could be held liable to the judgment creditor for the total amount of the judgment, but only when the amount due pursuant to the levy is greater than needed to satisfy the judgment. In other words, for the lesser of the two. (See: Cal. CCP Section 701.020. )

With regard to the OSC. I find nothing in California contemplating such a summary proceeding. What I have found is a California Appellate Court decision where the judgment creditor successfully filed a separate cause of action against the garnishee. But the case was not ordered to be published and I can't even find the caption. You can find the essence of it below:

californiafinance.mwbllp.com/2014/04/fyi-cal-app-ct-holds-calif

 

[LdiJ]

First with respect to the garnishee corporation's liability for failing to honor the garnishment. It is possible that the recalcitrant garnishee could be held liable to the judgment creditor for the total amount of the judgment, but only when the amount due pursuant to the levy is greater than needed to satisfy the judgment. In other words, for the lesser of the two. (See: Cal. CCP Section 701.020. )

With regard to the OSC. I find nothing in California contemplating such a summary proceeding. What I have found is a California Appellate Court decision where the judgment creditor successfully filed a separate cause of action against the garnishee. But the case was not ordered to be published and I can't even find the caption. You can find the essence of it below:

californiafinance.mwbllp.com/2014/04/fyi-cal-app-ct-holds-calif

Did you perhaps word that badly? It does not make sense logically or grammatically.

 

[latigo]

Did you perhaps word that badly? It does not make sense logically or grammatically.

Try this:

The liability of a defiant garnishee cannot exceed the amount needed to satisfy the judgment creditor's judgment. However, the garnishee is only liable in that amount where "the value of the judgment debtor’s interest in the property or the amount of the payments required to be made" * exceeds the total amount needed to satisfy the judgment creditor's judgment.

Otherwise such a garnishee's liability to the judgment creditor is limited to "the value of the judgment debtor’s interest in the property or the amount of the payments required to be made".

____________________________

Or we can dumb it down using three dummies.

First scenario: Moe has a judgment against Larry for $3K. Larry holds Curly's demand note for $5K. Moe has writ of garnishment served on Curly.

Larry makes a deal with Curly offering to discount the note 50% provided he stymies Moe's garnishment. Curly, none the wiser, agrees and foolishly answers the garnishment reporting nothing is due Larry.

Result: Curly is now liable to Moe for $3K. Why? Because the value of the debt Curly owes Larry and the amount that should've been reported in the answer to the garnishment ($5K) is greater than the amount needed to satisfy Moe's judgment of $3K.
_____________________

Second scenario: Same as before except that Curly's note to Larry of $5K is not due upon demand, but payable in monthly installments of $500.

Moe garnishes Curly and Larry makes the same deal as before. The difference now is that Curly's obligation to Larry isn't the $3K (the amount needed to satisfy Moe's judgment); it is only $500 which is "the amount of the payments" due Larry at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment. Which is less than the amount needed to satisfy Moe's $3K judgment.


[*] The high lighted language is taken verbatim from the California statute. Cal. CCP 701.020. If anyone ever tells you that reading and studying law is a walk in the park, ask them which park!

 

[Thelitigator]

Thank you Latigo!
I think I understand now. In my case I have about 28k on the writ of execution. This judgment is about 8 years old and have a lot of interest to add to the judgment. But as I understand, the employer is on the line for 28k for ignoring the wage garnishment potentially?

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you Latigo!
I think I understand now. In my case I have about 28k on the writ of execution. This judgment is about 8 years old and have a lot of interest to add to the judgment. But as I understand, the employer is on the line for 28k for ignoring the wage garnishment potentially?

At any one point in time the employer is only liable for the amount of money that could have been garnished from any payments made to the employee. If I understood Latigo's explanation. So, if the employee makes 3k every two weeks and 25% is the max that can be garnished for debt, then the max the employer would be liable for is 750.00 for every pay period missed.

However, its more likely that either the debtor does not work there anymore, or is not an employee (I do not know if Independent contractor payments can be garnished in your state).