Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 07:42 am  Hello all and happy new year. Just wanted to find out quickly, what is the maximum monthly wage garnishment for the state of California?
|
| | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 03:19 pm Happy new year to you too, Morgan, although from the looks of your posting it doesn't seem to be starting out very good. I just looked for about an HOUR, and found NOTHING. First at the Cal State site, then google, msn searches. It sure is frustrating. Found ALL KINDS of pages, the prarielaw forum had a question on Cal. garnishments, the answer referred to the public library ... Kits to purchase to defend yourself, international law commentaries on the "creditor friendly" California laws ... some interesting stuff, but no answers. If anyone could tell me HOW to find the answer to this simple question on-line, without PAYING for the answer, I'd sure appreciate it! What is the maximum monthly wage garnishment for the State of California?
|
| | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 03:58 pm One quarter of total monthly revenue.
|
| | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 04:16 pm Thanks, Shylock. Did you find that on-line somewhere? I'm wondering what the definition of monthly revenue is. Gross or net income? from all jobs? A guy in Alaska told me that the State can take 75% of his NET for child support, he's lucky they're only taking 65%. That sounds pretty grim, but I don't know if it's true.
|
| | Tuesday, January 02, 2001 - 09:40 pm I had an old boyfriend who paid at least 50% of his income through a garnishment for child support. Even that was not enough to cover the court awarded amount and he had to supplement it with a check every month. I'm not sure if it was net or gross. This was in Cali as well
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 04:30 am Well, perhaps special rules apply to child support. I have no idea. I just know that a creditor with a judgement can get up to 25% of the gross income in California. California Wage Garnishment Law is contained in the Code of Civil Procedures Section 706.010 and continuing on. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 07:08 am Thank you all so VERY much for your prompt responses and support, even references too! I'll tell you all, when you are a victim of circumstance and your income fluctuates in the slightest, life can be a roller coaster ride. I tooled around the net looking for the info (embarassingly a researcher by trade!) but could not find it. I've got two highly aggressive creditors that I am wrangling with... Let's hope that 2001 is a better year for all. It seems as though the technology at the CRs has already gone through the HAL 9000 syndrome-- "Experian, I need to verify this record..." "I'm sorry Dave, I cannot do that...I know that I haven't been myself lately..." Wasn't it interesting that in Kubrick's movie Pan American was THE carrier of the new millennium! Thanks again, all, and best of years!
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 07:41 am Just want to mention that child support definitely has very different rules, and so do student loan defaults as I noticed during my search yesterday, and of course the laws vary by State. Everything is so complicated, and surprisingly DIFFICULT to research, even on the net.
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 08:24 am Ouch Ouch Ouch! As one of the few people in the world planning NOT to have children, I now feel even stronger about my viewpoints. RM <-- looks for "vasectomy" in the yellow pages
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 11:22 am Forgive me again, but in the instance of multiple judgments (you can see what kind of year I'm having)--its still 25%--right? Not 25% per creditor?
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 03:58 pm Richard, go for the vasectomy. It's not that permanent, there's lots of billboards around Tucson advertising reversals.  Morgan, I just scanned the code and didn't find the 25% rule, but there's a lot more to the law than the MAXIMUM. Apparently you could avoid having your wages garnished if you need all your income to support yourself and your family. From http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=7328618686+9+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Well, can't seem to get this link to work, try this http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=ccp&codebody=garnishment&hits=20 and go to 706.122. "706.122. The "notice to employee of earnings withholding order" shall contain a statement that informs the employee in simple terms of the nature of a wage garnishment, the right to an exemption, the procedure for claiming an exemption, and any other information the Judicial Council determines would be useful to the employee and appropriate for inclusion in the notice, including all of the following: (a) The named employer has been ordered to withhold from the earnings of the judgment debtor the amounts required to be withheld under Section 706.050, or such other amounts as are specified in the earnings withholding order, and to pay these amounts over to the levying officer for transmittal to the person specified in the order in payment of the judgment described in the order. (b) The manner of computing the amounts required to be withheld pursuant to Section 706.050. (c) The judgment debtor may be able to keep more or all of the judgment debtor's earnings if the judgment debtor proves that the additional earnings are necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor's family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor. (d) If the judgment debtor wishes a court hearing to prove that amounts should not be withheld from the judgment debtor's earnings because they are necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor's family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor shall file with the levying officer an original and one copy of the "judgment debtor's claim of exemption" and an original and one copy of the "judgment debtor's financial statement." The notice shall also advise the judgment debtor that the claim of exemption form and the financial statement form may be obtained without charge at the office of the levying officer." I'd say an experienced lawyer should be able to tell you how this works in real life. I didn't see any formulas or guidelines, is it similar to filing for bankruptcy? You submit a budget and show that you can't pay? Somewhat unrelated, I also found this quote: "706.152. If an employer withholds earnings pursuant to this chapter and, with the intent to defraud either the judgment creditor or the judgment debtor, fails to pay such withheld earnings over to the levying officer, the employer is guilty of a misdemeanor." It's odd that "the intent to defraud" is only a misdemeanor. I think that's really wrong. The mortgage loan applications threaten with "... civil liability and/or criminal penalties including, but not limited to, fine or imprisonment, or both, under Title 18 ..." for a little misrepresentation (lie) NOT to defraud, but only to get the loan approved. It doesn't make sense to me. I guess it's just another example of the double standards I find everywhere. Anyway, good luck, Morgan, and let us know what happens!
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 06:53 pm Obviously garnishment is a very complicated issue. But at the time I researched it, it was up to 25% of your gross income that could be taken to satisfy all of your creditors. I think that businesses are also entitled to recover a small fee for being the bearer of bad news. It used to be a whole dollar. It may have changed.
|
| | Wednesday, January 03, 2001 - 06:57 pm I just re-read your post, Christine, and saw your comment on the misdemeanor part. In California possession of a concealed, loaded firearm is a misdemeanor (first offense) but first offense possession of cocaine or first offense possession of a concealed knife are both felonies. Does it make sense? Not really. Laws rarely make sense.
|
| | Thursday, January 04, 2001 - 08:49 am See the dating forum for my very off-topic reply (re: vasectomy).
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |