Check out some similar questions!

lissiesmith · Dec 29, 2008, 08:48 AM

If a bank receives a garnishment can the bank deduct a fee for answering the garnishment BEFORE they remit the funds on the garnishment.

Also does the same apply on a summons?

And what about a subpoena? Can the bank deduct a fee or do they just have to bill the court for the research?

excon · Dec 31, 2008, 05:58 AM

Hello lissie:

It would depend on the agreement the customer has with his bank. I would assume the bank DOES have the authority...

I, for sure, DON'T read those little bits of paper with that teeny little print that they send me every time they want to change the rules - which is about every month...

Do you?

excon

JudyKayTee · Dec 31, 2008, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by lissiesmith

If a bank receives a garnishment can the bank deduct a fee for answering the garnishment BEFORE they remit the funds on the garnishment.

Also does the same apply on a summons?

And what about a subpoena? Can the bank deduct a fee or do they just have to bill the court for the research?

The garnishment, yes, in most States - employers can charge a fee for the extra paperwork, as can banks.

A summons wouldn't be served on a bank unless the bank was being sued. What charge would be connected with a summons?

A subpoena requires the bank to - if it's a duces tecum - present its records. They cannot charge for the information if a Court issues the subpoena which is usually the case. I serve subpoenas on hospitals and doctors all the time.

AK lawyer · Jan 16, 2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by lissiesmith

If a bank receives a garnishment can the bank deduct a fee for answering the garnishment BEFORE they remit the funds on the garnishment.

No, unless the local court rules provide for such a deduction.

Also does the same apply on a summons?

The bank has been sued by a depositor and served with a summons? Unless the agreement they have made with the depositor specifically provides for a fee for being served with a summons, it is very doubtful that the bank could justify such a fee.

And what about a subpoena? Can the bank deduct a fee or do they just have to bill the court for the research?

There are generally two types of subpoenas: a subpoena to testify at a trial or deposition, and a subpoena duces tecum, requiring them to appear and bring with them certain described documents.

In neither case, can a subpoena require the bank to engage in research. Should a subpoena duces tecum, require the production of documents which would be burdensome to produce, the bank can ask the court issuing the subpoena for a protective order which, among other things, can stipulate that the party seeking the information pay a fee up front.

JudyKayTee · Jan 16, 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

No, unless the local court rules provide for such a deduction.

The bank has been sued by a depositor and served with a summons? Unless the agreement they have made with the depositor specifically provides for a fee for being served with a summons, it is very doubtful that the bank could justify such a fee.

There are generally two types of subpoenas: a subpoena to testify at a trial or deposition, and a subpoena duces tecum, requiring them to appear and bring with them certain described documents.

In neither case, can a subpoena require the bank to engage in research. Should a subpoena duces tecum, require the production of documents which would be burdensome to produce, the bank can ask the court issuing the subpoena for a protective order which, among other things, can stipulate that the party seeking the information pay a fee up front.

Would you please post a site about the bank not being allowed by charge fees by Statute for the deduction as well as the idea that the entity served must pay for the service.

This is not the way it works in my State and I am curious how the Law is worded in your State.

AK lawyer · Jan 16, 2009, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Would you please post a site about the bank not being allowed by charge fees by Statute for the deduction as well as the idea that the entity served must pay for the service.

This is not the way it works in my State and I am curious how the Law is worded in your State.

I said nothing about a statute, and nothing suggesting that an "entity served must pay for the service". Can you please clarify your question?

JudyKayTee · Jan 17, 2009, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

I said nothing about a statute, and nothing suggesting that an "entity served must pay for the service". Can you please clarify your question?

You are correct. I misspoke. You said, "The bank has been sued by a depositor and served with a summons? Unless the agreement they have made with the depositor specifically provides for a fee for being served with a summons, it is very doubtful that the bank could justify such a fee."

I own a process service company and have never a fee served with a Summons - with a Subpoena, yes. Summons, no. Would like to know if Arkansas allows this and why.

And this: "If a bank receives a garnishment can the bank deduct a fee for answering the garnishment BEFORE they remit the funds on the garnishment. No, unless the local court rules provide for such a deduction."

I thought banking laws in the particular State made this determination, not the local Courts.

AK lawyer · Jan 18, 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

... I own a process service company and have never a fee served with a Summons - with a Subpoena, yes. Summons, no. Would like to know if Arkansas allows this and why.

Before I start pouring through the AR statutes, let me get you to refine your query a slight bit more. You have served or attempted to serve the summons on the bank and they are trying to tell you that the service is invalid because they received no fee? I would think that their remedy would be to file some sort of a motion with the court asserting insufficiency of process.

And this: "If a bank receives a garnishment can the bank deduct a fee for answering the garnishment BEFORE they remit the funds on the garnishment. No, unless the local court rules provide for such a deduction."

I thought banking laws in the particular State made this determination, not the local Courts.

The theory I am going on is this: the writ of garnishment commands the bank to pay to the court all funds on deposit belonging to the judgment debtor at the moment the writ is served upon it. Unless there is an exception specified in the writ, "all" means "all". It is possible that there could be an exception (in court rule or statute) allowing the bank to withhold a specific fee for processing; in which case the writ would be erroneously worded.

JudyKayTee · Jan 18, 2009, 08:02 AM

I think we're on two different pages here.

The original questions were: “And what about a subpoena? Can the bank deduct a fee or do they just have to bill the court for the research... Also, does the same apply on a summons?”

You answered: “The bank has been sued by a depositor and served with a summons? Unless the agreement they have made with the depositor specifically provides for a fee for being served with a summons, it is very doubtful that the bank could justify such a fee.”

My question is whether the person served with the Summons (again, not a Subpoena) can ever charge a fee in AK. In NY, they cannot. A Subpoena is served with the check for mileage attached... but there is no payment with a Summons, no payment for research, copies or anything else.

Not arguing law here and don't need you to quote the law - I just don't understand why a fee would be charged to a party when a Summons is served.

Have I now made this even more confusing?

AK lawyer · Jan 18, 2009, 12:10 PM

Ah, you were confused by "AK". Yes. I am an attorney in Alaska.

Anyway, it is concievable that a garnishment proceeding would be to some extent considered a new case (as against the bank), in which case a summons would be served. But no, it would not entitle the bank to charge a fee.

JudyKayTee · Jan 18, 2009, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

Ah, you were confused by "AK". Yes. I am an attorney in Alaska.

Anyway, it is concievable that a garnishment proceeding would be to some extent considered a new case (as against the bank), in which case a summons would be served. But no, it would not entitle the bank to charge a fee.

Alaska? I really AM confused!

Someone else just went through a whole "LA" thread with one person meaning Louisiana and the other referring to Los Angeles. :D