Garnishment exemption

[LdiJ]

Why do you think it does not apply? The employer is deducting more from the wages than is allowed.

Are you saying that because the employer should not have been deducting anything at all, or are you saying that because you misread the thread and think that the employer is deducting more than 20%? I ask because the way you worded the above makes it seem as though you believe the latter.

 

[Zigner]

Are you saying that because the employer should not have been deducting anything at all, or are you saying that because you misread the thread and think that the employer is deducting more than 20%? I ask because the way you worded the above makes it seem as though you believe the latter.

The employer is deducting more than allowed by the code section cited. The code section cited states that NOTHING shall be garnished, so ANY deduction for a garnishment is more than allowed. It was worded appropriately.

 

[quincy]

If I'm not mistaken.... Can't lawyer fees be included in the judgment amount if I win the case?

You can sue for your actual damages and you can be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.

To LdiJ: I did not misread the thread. I was referencing Payroll Guy's post. He did not see how the garnishment law applied but that was because he was reading the wrong section of the law - not the section that was cited. Zigner quoted the applicable section.

Here is a link to the entire chapter on garnishment (Chapter 812) if anyone wants to explore it:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/812.pdf

Again, my concern is with the delay in reporting the garnishment. IF tchachi followed the correct procedure when submitting his exemption form to his employer, nothing should have been deducted from his pay to satisfy the judgment. When deductions were first noticed, tchachi should have taken action at that time. But I don't know what effect this delay will have.

 

[latigo]

If I'm not mistaken.... Can't lawyer fees be included in the judgment amount if I win the case?

Why do you think that you would not be mistaken?

The rule of law generally applied in American Jurisprudence (not surprisingly known as the "American Rule") holds that the prevailing party is only entitled to attorney fees when provided by contract or statute.

Because your contract of employment undoubtedly does not anticipate the issue you'll need to drum up a statute and I don't think you will find one.

If I were you, I would be more concerned about the timeliness of giving proper notice of your claim. A possible time factor not to be confused with any statutory period of limitation within which a civil action must be commenced. And if applicable to the school where you were formerly employed, I would start by looking at Section 893.80 et seq. of the Wisconsin Statutes pertaining to Claims Against Governmental Bodies, Officers and Employees.

 

[quincy]

Why do you think that you would not be mistaken?

The rule of law generally applied in American Jurisprudence (not surprisingly known as the "American Rule") holds that the prevailing party is only entitled to attorney fees when provided by contract or statute.

Because your contract of employment undoubtedly does not anticipate the issue you'll need to drum up a statute and I don't think you will find one.

If I were you, I would be more concerned about the timeliness of giving proper notice of your claim. A possible time factor not to be confused with any statutory period of limitation within which a civil action must be commenced.

I believe (although I could be wrong ) that damages awarded to the debtor are limited to the amount of exempt earnings paid by the employer to the creditor ONLY if the employer shows that the payments were an unintentional error - leaving open the ability of the debtor to collect attorney fees.

That said, I once again agree it is the time factor that is problematic.