Jump to content

Talk:Garnishment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK - Garnishment is Attachment of Earnings.

[edit]

In the UK, this is known as Attachment of earnings. The term Garnishment is not used.

Actually, no. The garnishee order _is_ known to the UK legal system, but it can't be used in the same way that it's used in the States, because a salary (in the UK) isn't a _debt_ owed by the employer to the employee (unless it's not paid on time). The UK Attachment of Earnings order has the same _effect_, but it's a different legal entity. I would Oppose the proposed merger. (Incidentally, following the Woolf reforms, garnishee orders are now referred to in the UK legal system as "Third-party debt orders", but they're still not Attachment of Earnings orders). Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Law Systems

[edit]

Some civil law systems use similar arrangements, particularly for the enforcement of judgments in commercial claims, as well as in interlocutory proceedings. Although such procedures can be literally translated as "third party seizures", the term garnishment, garnishee and judgment debtor allow for more legible and comprehensible translations. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization of article

[edit]

This article seems to focus on the United States, but, probably there are other countries where garnishment happens. Hence, I added the Globalize template. --Slartibartfast 06:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wage assignment"?

[edit]

I was redirected to this page from my search, "wage assignment," but that doesn't tell me definitively whether or not they're exactly the same thing. Does anyone know if they are? -Dan 02:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC) can they take more then the amount ordered more over time i do the more they take out weekly–[reply]

2 garnishment at the same time

[edit]

I need to know if two debt collectors can garnish my wages at the same time...in the state of the colorado.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.203.187 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Most states follow the first to serve rule; see information in expanded garnishment article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halgai (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I cash in Brown eyes 1980 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wage garnishment

[edit]

The references 'How to Stop Wage Garnishment' http://www.centsableaccounting.com/resources/articles/stopgarnishments.asp and 'Avoid Wage Garnishment' http://bankruptcy-law.freeadvice.com/collections/wage-garnishments.htm have been removed and I think they should be reinstated.

The sentences "Wage garnishments continue until the entire debt is paid or arrangements are made to pay off the debt." (3rd sentence in the Wage garnishment paragraph) and " Employers receive a notice telling them to withhold a certain amount of their employee's wages for payment and cannot refuse to garnish wages." (last sentence in the paragraph after the bullet points) are both referenced from 'How to Stop Wage Garnishment'.

The sentence "Wage garnishment can negatively affect credit, reputation, and the ability to receive a loan or open a bank account." (3rd paragraph in Wage garnishment section) is referenced from 'Avoid Wage Garnishment'.

These sentences add valuable information (they are still there) but their references are not. It looks like the references were just added but they were not. The information was added first; then their corresponding references were added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephra8 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I put the references 'How to Stop Wage Garnishment' and 'Avoid Wage Garnishment' back because they referenced the sentences above. They were replaced by other links when in fact, the sentences above are from 'How to Stop Wage Garnishment' and 'Avoid Wage Garnishment.' I simply put the correct references back in place.Ephra8 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Ephra8[reply]

You have been trying to spam links to this firm for months. Free advice does not qualify as a reliable source. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I honestly haven't been. I found the information from those two sources. Since Free Advice doesn't qualify as a reliable source I left the third link intact but reverted the first two links because information was referenced from there. If they don't qualify as reliable, feel free to remove.Ephra8 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Ephra8[reply]
Please, there are additions of this firm from your account going back to June 2008. I do not believe its a reliable source as the site's goal is to push you towards is services. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 16:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some clarifications. this At least in the United States, garnishment of wages, etc., in connection with collection of U.S. federal taxes does not require a court order or other judgment. It's an administrative power held by the Internal Revenue Service by statute. Citations added. Famspear (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garnishment rules in Canada

[edit]

The Canadian Bar Association has a nice write up on garnishment in Canada. [1] 24.156.216.144 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Employee or Independent Contractor / Sub-Contractor

[edit]

I am looking for information on when an Employer - Employee relationship exists for wage garnishment law. Do wage garnishment orders addressed to the "Employer" apply to Contractors who hire Sub-Contractors by the job? How does that vary between states with federal law in the U.S., and other nations? Joseph.scone (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this talk page is not generally the place to ask or answer questions like this, except to the extent that we're trying to edit the article.
Having said that, I'll give a brief answer. In generally, it doesn't matter whether it's an employee or an independent contractor.
Generally, if there is no employer-employee relationship, then there is no "wage" to garnish. But there could be "compensation" or other amounts due to an independent contractor. "Wage" is just a subset of "compensation." The existence of an employment relationship is generally not a requirement under certain laws, such as the U.S. Federal tax law on administrative levy.
In the U.S. Federal tax law example, Company #1 could be required to turn over, to the Internal Revenue Service, the compensation otherwise payable to Company #2, where Company #2 (or it could be an individual, etc.) is an independent contractor, a sub-contractor. In any case, the notice of levy (the garnishment order, if you want to call it that) addressed to Company #1 would have to state specifically whose compensation is being levied, anyway. In this situation, it really doesn't matter whether the amount owed by Company #1 to Company #2 is wage, or other compensation, or anything else. As long as it's an amount owed by Company #1 to Company #2, it can be the subject of an IRS levy.
Further, for U.S. Federal tax law purposes, Company #1 is absolved of liability to Company #2 (and of liability to anyone else, for that matter) when Company #1 honors the IRS notice of levy. Indeed, Company #1 can be held personally liable to the government "in his [or its] own person and estate" for failing or refusing to comply with the IRS levy notice. See generally Internal Revenue Code section 6332, subsections (a), (d) and (e).
On state law issues, and on the law of countries other than the United States, I don't know -- as I deal mainly with U.S. federal tax law. Famspear (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garnishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK law

[edit]

Currently in UK law, ‘garnishee order’ refers to the process that occurs when party B owes money to party A, party C in turn owes money to party B and party B has been found in breach of contract with party A. A court can then order that monies are paid directly from party C to party A to recover party AB’s debt to party A. In other words, B’s debt to A is paid by B’s receivables not B itself. The term ‘garnishee order’ used to have a wider meaning in UK law but now this is its only remaining meaning. I’ve been learning about this for my AAT accountancy course. This article is in dire need of globalising! Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC) 17:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garnishment&oldid=1202216963"