• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

NY state Percentages

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

CandiceH

Member
What is the name of your state? NY
Does anyone have a link to a website that has the max percentages that can be garnished for CS? I know that I have seen it before but I cant find it again. I have a court order for 25 percent, plus child care, which comes to 49 percent of his gross minus FICA. Well, his work informed me that they cant take out more than 40 percent by the(and yes, he is in arrears). And yes, they said they would not abide by the Superior Court CS order. They also informed HIS attorney, which wants to file an ammendment. I dont see MY attorney until the 27th. I KNOW that it is ABOVE 50 percent if in arrears but I cant find the link to the LAW.

See, backdoored at every turn. HOW is he doing this?
 


What is the name of your state? NY
Does anyone have a link to a website that has the max percentages that can be garnished for CS? I know that I have seen it before but I cant find it again. I have a court order for 25 percent, plus child care, which comes to 49 percent of his gross minus FICA. Well, his work informed me that they cant take out more than 40 percent by the(and yes, he is in arrears). And yes, they said they would not abide by the Superior Court CS order. They also informed HIS attorney, which wants to file an ammendment. I dont see MY attorney until the 27th. I KNOW that it is ABOVE 50 percent if in arrears but I cant find the link to the LAW.

See, backdoored at every turn. HOW is he doing this?

I know in my area they take out more than 50% of my exs' check. He supposedly only makes $300 gross on the books (off books could be more), and they take the court ordered normal support obligation (child support+health care percent+ daycare percent) which equals more than half. He is in fact still in arrears as well.

Have you tried contacting the support enforcement unit? Im not sure why is work is informing you. Im in NY and Capital district area...you should try contacting local enforcement such as your case worker or whoever is in charge of your case. I am able to call him I wasnt at first but first time I went down to the unit he gave me his direct number to call him anytime I had questions or info.
 

GrowUp!

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? NY
Does anyone have a link to a website that has the max percentages that can be garnished for CS? I know that I have seen it before but I cant find it again. I have a court order for 25 percent, plus child care, which comes to 49 percent of his gross minus FICA. Well, his work informed me that they cant take out more than 40 percent by the(and yes, he is in arrears). And yes, they said they would not abide by the Superior Court CS order. They also informed HIS attorney, which wants to file an ammendment. I dont see MY attorney until the 27th. I KNOW that it is ABOVE 50 percent if in arrears but I cant find the link to the LAW.

See, backdoored at every turn. HOW is he doing this?

The max garnishment allowed per order is 50% of take-home, if married; 60% if single. If there are more than 12-weeks of arrearage, then they can add an additional 5%. So, his employer IS correct. It's up to the obligor to pay the rest.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
The max garnishment allowed per order is 50% of take-home, if married; 60% if single. If there are more than 12-weeks of arrearage, then they can add an additional 5%. So, his employer IS correct. It's up to the obligor to pay the rest.

How is his employer correct if his employer is stating 40%?
 

GrowUp!

Senior Member
How is his employer correct if his employer is stating 40%?
Oops...I misspoke. The employer is correct that they can not comply with the court order...but where the 40% came from...who knows? The obligor is still responsible for what the garnishment doesn't cover.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
The max garnishment allowed per order is 50% of take-home, if married; 60% if single. If there are more than 12-weeks of arrearage, then they can add an additional 5%. So, his employer IS correct. It's up to the obligor to pay the rest.


I don't think it's possible to take 50-60% EACH on multiple orders.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
http://childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art200110.html

Pursuant to federal law, consumers are protected from having more than 25% of their aggregate disposable earnings subject to garnishment by creditors. 15 U.S.C. § 1673(a). As defined in the statute, “garnishment” is defined to mean “any legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of any individual are required to be withheld for payment of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1672(c).

The consumer protections of § 303(a) of the Act do not apply, however, to “any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction . . . which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.” 15 U.S.C. § 1673(d)(1). In such cases, a garnishment to enforce any order of support shall not exceed 50% of an individual’s disposable earnings if the individual is supporting a spouse or dependent child other than the spouse or child for whose support the order is to be used. 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b)(2), or 60% where the individual is not supporting another spouse or child. 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b)(2). Thus, any order for garnishment of wages for purposes of support must comply with § 303(b) of the Act. E.g., Voss Products, Inc. v. Carlton, 147 F. Supp.2d 892 (E.D. Tenn. 2001); Marshall v. District Court for Forty-First-b Judicial District of Michigan, 444 F. Supp. 1110 (E.D. Mich.1978); State Comptroller v. First Alabama Bank, 642 So. 2d 1349 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993); Cameron v. Hughes, 825 P.2d 882 (Alaska 1992); Bitzer v. Bitzer, No. CA 98-648 (Ark. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 1999); Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Naedel v. Naedel, 115 Md. App. 347, 693 A.2d 60 (1997); Magee v. Magee, 755 So.2d 1057 (Miss. 2000); Gardiner v. Fanning, 1994 Neb. 246 (1994); Bigness v. Obit, 448 N.Y.S.2d 120 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1982); In re Yeauger, 83 Ohio App. 3d 493, 615 N.E.2d 289 (1992); Laws v. Laws, 758 A.2d 1226 (Pa. Super. 2000); Center for Gastrointestinal Medicine v. Willitts, 137 N.H. 67, 623 A.2d 752 (1993).

The statute provides:

§ 1673

(a) Maximum allowable garnishment

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed (1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or (2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206(a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable, whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).

(b) Exceptions

(1) The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of (A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review. (B) any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11. (C) any debt due for any State or Federal tax. (2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed - (A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; and (B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.

The restrictions on garnishment laws do “not annul, alter, or affect or exempt any person from complying with the laws of any state prohibiting garnishments or providing for more limited garnishments than are allowed under” the federal law. 15 U.S.C. § 1677. Evans v. Evans, 429 F. Supp. 580 ( ); see Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 587 n. 20 ( ). The statutory scheme has been viewed as an exemption statute. Hodgson v. Cleveland Municipal Court, 326 F. Supp. 419 ( ). The intent of Congress was to put a limitation on the garnishment of wages, in order to “relieve countless honest debtors driven by economic desperation from plunging into bankruptcy in order to preserve their employment and insure a continued means of support for themselves and their families.” U.S. Code, Cong. & Admin. News, 1968, vol. 2, p. 1979. Thus, federal law provides a consumer with protection from court ordered deductions which go beyond a certain percentage of an individual’s disposable income.

When a support order provides for payment to the support collection unit and all such orders mush provide for a wage deduction order upon a failure to make a designated number of payments, the federally mandated percentages apply. This is so because the wage deduction order is served on the employer upon the happening of the contingency of nonpayment, and no such order could be carried out by an employer which exceeds the mandated percentages without additional notice to the respondent. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 ( ).

As new forms of compensation become increasingly common, a new question has arisen: are profit-sharing awards and bonuses “earnings” for purposes of the Act? In the recent case of Genessee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors Corp., ___ Mich. ___, 626 N.W.2d 395 (2001), the court decided that such incentives were “earnings” under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Therefore, the extent to which they could be garnished for child support was subject to the caps contained in the Act.

In this case, the employees received annual profit-sharing payments and an annual $2,000 “signing bonus” pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. In addition, some employees received discretionary “recognition awards” in lieu of raises. The plaintiffs were seeking to enforce support orders against the employees. The plaintiffs argued that the payments the employees received did not constitute earnings under the Act, and therefore were not subject to the federal cap. In particular, the plaintiffs argued the payments could not be considered earnings because they were lump sum payments of uncertain amounts, rather than consistent amounts of money received at regular intervals.

The court held that “earnings” are compensation paid or payable for personal services. The fact that the amounts of the payments were not known in advance and, in some cases, subject to the discretion of management, did not change the character of the payment as compensation of personal services.
 

GrowUp!

Senior Member
I don't think it's possible to take 50-60% EACH on multiple orders.
This has been brought up dozens of times. Yes, it is possible on EACH order. 50-60% of what's left. As I've stated before in responses to this, each order has less $$ available to garnishment.
 

CandiceH

Member
Thank you VERY much for the links and the information posted on this thread. From what I understand from all of this is that it is a MAX of 60% if not married or have any other children. He was ordered to pay 25% for CS plus arrearages and 65% of daycare. This amount comes to 49% of his disposable income (after the deduction of taxes). ALL of this was figured in COURT, the judge ORDERED this and his work is making up their own rules. I dont know WHERE the 40% came into play. It is STILL under the 50% guideline IF he was married, which he is not.

I truly dont understand how an employer can make up their own rules and decide not to abide by an ORDER. Thanks again for all of the info. Meeting with my attorney the 27th and this time, I am fully armed and more than outraged. They stated they wouldnt even abide by PART of the order :mad: .
 

Rushia

Senior Member
Thank you VERY much for the links and the information posted on this thread. From what I understand from all of this is that it is a MAX of 60% if not married or have any other children. He was ordered to pay 25% for CS plus arrearages and 65% of daycare. This amount comes to 49% of his disposable income (after the deduction of taxes). ALL of this was figured in COURT, the judge ORDERED this and his work is making up their own rules. I dont know WHERE the 40% came into play. It is STILL under the 50% guideline IF he was married, which he is not.

I truly dont understand how an employer can make up their own rules and decide not to abide by an ORDER. Thanks again for all of the info. Meeting with my attorney the 27th and this time, I am fully armed and more than outraged. They stated they wouldnt even abide by PART of the order :mad: .

I told you didn't I?;)
 
Im confused by this whole thing. My order is fully garnished from my exs check. I believe the percent is about 55%. Hes married, and this is his only child but he has step children. Nothing more towards arrears or anything, just the normal weekly obligation. I was told by support case worker (not NYS hotline clerk people either) that nothing more can be taken to put towards arrears from his check because they would need a court order for it. So I am confused. Someone posted the laws but I dont understand it.

Could the fact that he was making 45,000 a yr and then quit and now only makes $300 a wk gross change anything pertaining to this?
 

GrowUp!

Senior Member
Im confused by this whole thing. My order is fully garnished from my exs check. I believe the percent is about 55%. Hes married, and this is his only child but he has step children. Nothing more towards arrears or anything, just the normal weekly obligation. I was told by support case worker (not NYS hotline clerk people either) that nothing more can be taken to put towards arrears from his check because they would need a court order for it. So I am confused. Someone posted the laws but I dont understand it.
The case worker was correct.

Could the fact that he was making 45,000 a yr and then quit and now only makes $300 a wk gross change anything pertaining to this?
If he quit and took a lower paying job, that still does NOT change the amount of support he is responsible to pay. It DOES change his garnishment because his employer is legally bound to comply with the law, as that supercedes the garnishment order. BUT he is still responsible to make up the amount out of his own pocket.
 

CandiceH

Member
And that is when you can take it BACK to court for contempt correct? So, no matter WHAT he TRIES to pull, he is still responsible for what is ORDERED! Now, I am getting it through my head BUT I still dont get where his employer came up with the 40 percent. The EMPLOYER stated that the basic CS amount is OVER the 40 percent and that is a flat out lie. I have the paystubs and bonuses from previous years were NOT taken into account because I asked that it only be set on his BASE pay. I know he didnt take a pay cut, that was proven.
 

GrowUp!

Senior Member
And that is when you can take it BACK to court for contempt correct?
That is IF he has not been paying the court-ordered amount.

So, no matter WHAT he TRIES to pull, he is still responsible for what is ORDERED! Now, I am getting it through my head BUT I still dont get where his employer came up with the 40 percent. The EMPLOYER stated that the basic CS amount is OVER the 40 percent and that is a flat out lie. I have the paystubs and bonuses from previous years were NOT taken into account because I asked that it only be set on his BASE pay. I know he didnt take a pay cut, that was proven.
[/quote]
Your issue is not with his employer. It doesn't matter if you think they lied. Your issue is with him. Regardless of what they told you, that does NOT change the fact that he is MUST pay what he is ordered to pay per month.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top