[schatzieJAD]

The judge ordered her to pay me $50.00 a month (by the 3rd of each month, but hasn't paid anything yet. I too a fifa on her but was told there's nothing I can do. That this would only go on her credit report.. it this true

[donf]

No, you can petition the court to grant a garnishment against her for her salary, savings <P.S. I left out checking account> etc.

If the garnishment is granted, you can then go to her employee and have the money taken directly from her salary.

[this8384]

the judge ordered her to pay me $50.00 a month (by the 3rd of each month, but hasnt paid anything yet. i too a fifa on her but was told theres nothing i can do. that this would only go on her credit report.. it this true

Here's the issue: Social Security income is exempt from garnishment. So unless she has a job(most likely not, as she's receiving SSI), garnishment isn't an option for you.

You can file to have her bank account frozen but if she notifies the bank that her only income is SSI, you're going to be out of luck.

Where are you located that a judge actually ordered her to repay you? In most cases they award the judgment and that's where the court's responsibility ends. Was this a small claims suit you brought against her, or was it a different case in which she was ordered to pay restitution?

[donf]

This8384,

I once had the same situation happen (I know your stance on that, but as listed on your profile, my comment is based on my personal experience). It was in fact an error in the award because of slow paper work.

The answer I received was that regardless of SSI check, once it is deposited into the checking account, the garnishment will happen. It is only SSI monies until it reaches the checking account, after that it is cash. So while the actual SSI check was not garnished, the checking account was and the bank had no choice but to collect the monies.

Now in my case, just as This8384 stated, there was a second small check that would get deposited, however, the bank rep. said it did not matter.

The law was in place to eliminate the burden on the government.

In my case, the paperwork finally cycled through and the garnishment was removed and I was repaid the money that was taken.

[this8384]

This8384,

I once had the same situation happen (I know your stance on that, but as listed on your profile, my comment is based on my personal experience). It was in fact an error in the award because of slow paper work.

The answer I received was that regardless of SSI check, once it is deposited into the checking account, the garnishment will happen. It is only SSI monies until it reaches the checking account, after that it is cash. So while the actual SSI check was not garnished, the checking account was and the bank had no choice but to collect the monies.

Now in my case, just as This8384 stated, there was a second small check that would get deposited, however, the bank rep. said it did not matter.

The law was in place to eliminate the burden on the government.

In my case, the paperwork finally cycled through and the garnishment was removed and I was repaid the money that was taken.

Hi Don.

Once again, you're not reading what I said. I said IF the defendant notifies the bank that the only money being deposited into said bank account is funding from SSI, then the garnishment will be worthless. The bank doesn't pay attention to where the money comes from, just whether it's in the account.

And no - if you search through the other threads on this site, you will see a vast amount of postings that all state the same thing: if it's SSI, you can't touch it.

A small claims judgment is not a "burden on the government" - I don't know how you're interpreting that as such. SSI can and will be garnished for things such as federal loans, back taxes, student loans, etc. Not for small claims judgments.

[donf]

All I can say, was that the "Bank" took the position that it was cash once it was deposited. The judgement was taken against the account, not the source of the payment.

By "Burden" I meant the administrative nightmare that that thousands of garnishment orders would place on the administration to track and pay.

As you did say, I had another small income check going into the account, but that was a trivial amount and the garnishment was paid out of the SSI funds that were deposited.

[this8384]

All I can say, was that the "Bank" took the position that it was cash once it was deposited. The judgement was taken against the account, not the source of the payment.

By "Burden" I meant the administrative nightmare that that thousands of garnishment orders would place on the administration to track and pay.

As you did say, I had another small income check going into the account, but that was a trivial amount and the garnishment was paid out of the SSI funds that were deposited.

Good then, I'm glad you got paid. Your one-time experience that took place I-don't-know-when is the exception, not the rule.

SSI funds are exempt from garnishment of any kind. Period.

[donf]

The garnishment was approved in June of 2007. It was placed in Virginia Beach, VA.

It was resolved by November, 2007.

The Bank in question, deducted the monies immediately from SSI checks until the garnishment was paid.

The person I spoke to at the bank, referred me to the bank officer responsible for handling judgements.

Let me ask it this way, is it possible that because there were periodic deposits of $50 or less at random times of the month, the monies were taken?

[CinnamonBrownie]

Hi donf,

You said, "Let me ask it this way, is it possible that because there were periodic deposits of $50 or less at random times of the month, the monies were taken?"

The thing is, SSI funds are 100% exempt from judgment execution. The rub though, is the burden of proving that something is exempt is your burden. The bank simply has an officer that responds to court orders and follows whatever the order says. That's all the bank is and should be concerned about.

You should have received some sort of written notice of the garnishment from the court. That is the party you want to pay attention to, because somewhere on that paperwork there will be instructions on how to get a hearing before the judge to show cause why the garnishment should either not be granted at all, or only granted in part.

That's where you want to fight this thing. And when the judge hears your side (bring bank statements showing deposits), he'll make sure the SSI funds or anything that should be exempt from the judgment creditor's garnishment is protected, i.e. he'll reduce or zero out the amount of the garnishment for you and issue a new order to the bank.

In other words, contacting the bank will do no good. You must request a hearing at the court within the amount of time the court gives you when you got the garnishment paperwork. Show up for the hearing and explain what shouldn't be touched to the judge and that will protect everything.

I hope this helps.

[donf]

Actually, I was told that I did not need to go to court because the error was found.

However, no one told the attorney that went. The law firm went to the court, and removed the judgement and had all my monies returned.

[Fr_Chuck]

And back to the OP, first your location will decide if you can even garnish their pay, some US states do not allow for some debts. And as noted on the SSI money.
And I will agree at times you can get it from the bank, but also you may have to pay it back if they take it to court.

The short story to a long hard road is very often, you just don't ever get your money, Winning a law suit and getting a judgement is fairly easy, actually getting your money is a lot harder.

[CinnamonBrownie]

Oh, excellent news. I'm glad to hear it worked out for you!

[ScottGem]

Let me try to clear this up. SSI is exempt from garnishment due to personal debt. The issue here is that once those funds are deposited into a bank account they are no longer SSI, they are then simply an asset of the depositor. The depositor now has the burden of proving the assets came from exempt income.

The bank is going to honor a validly executed writ of attachment against the account. Some banks will accept a notation against the account that the deposits are only from exempt income. However, if there is other income deposited, this commingles the funds and makes it harder to determine what came from exempt funds and what didn't.

So, in Don's case the funds were commingled and the defendant probably did not fight the attachment correctly so Don got paid. But it is certainly possible, if SSI income are the only amounts deposited and the account owner can prove it, then they can usually have the writ of execution vacated on those grounds.

[donf]

Scott,

Point of clarification. In my situation, a judgement and garnishment were against me. The bank took the money and paid the garnishment.

The lawyer for the collector, when he finally realized that the debt had been paid, petitioned the judge to remove the judgement and garnishment and then had the money returned to me.

An ethical lawyer, just one of many!