Facts:
Employer-Caterpillar- appeals from two separate judgments of circuit
court of the county. First action brought by plaintiff-appellee, Com
Ed to collect monies due by Denson. On June 1984, court entered
judgment against Denson for $600 plus costs. Summons was issued for
a wage deduction order in the amount of the judgment and Com Ed
served interrogatories on Caterpillar, Denson’s current employer.
Caterpillar responded and forwarded a check to Com Ed for $140. It
declined to deduct the full amount because it already deducted $60
per week for a support order. The second action was brought by
plaintiff-appellee, Newsome PT to collect monies due and owing by
Dwight Morgan. On October 1984, the court entered judgment for
Newsome against Morgan for $748. Summons was issued and Newsome
served interrogatories on Caterpillar, Morgan’s current employer.
Cat contends that under Illinois law, no garnishment is allowed that
would exceed the lesser of 15% of gross earnings, or the amount by
which the weekly disposable earnings exceed 30 times the Federal
minimum hourly wage, which was 3.35 at the time. The garnishment
restrictions of the Consumer Credit Protection Act preempts state
laws insofar as state laws would permit recovery in excess of 25% of
an individual’s disposable earnings. 15 USC §1673.
Issue:
Are support orders and creditor garnishment to be calculated
separately?
Holding:
No combine the two. If the support order is 25%, and the support
garnishment has priority in accordance w/ state law, the CCPA does
not permit the withholding of any additional amounts pursuant to an
ordinary garnishment, which is subject to the restrictions of 1673.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment