if your only source of income is social security or veterans benefits are these incomes able to be garnished by a judgment?Can they freeze your checking account where this income is direct deposited? Thanks
Yes they can!! The judgement can freeze your accounts and garnish every dime you owe until it's paid up. Banks won't open a new account for you either, once you have one flagged for garnishment. Doesn't matter whether it's the same bank or not. What do you owe?? For what?? What's keeping you from paying on time?
Check your state law. Some states have specific limitations on judgements and garnishment. You can also request that hard copies of the checks be sent directly to your postal mail address and any bills can be paid through money orders.
SS is exempt from seizure or garnishment. Exception being student loans. Be sure you are on record as to the source of funds. Anyone tries to freeze or garnish and tey are in deep trouble. Law.com 6th Circuit Rules Debt-Collection Lawyers' Affidavits Not Protected by ImmunityThursday March 9, 3:00 am ET Peter Geier, The National Law Journal Debt-collection lawyers who file affidavits to obtain garnishments in state courts are fair game for consumers' Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuits in federal court, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held. ADVERTISEMENT The decision marks the first time that a federal circuit has held that a debt-collection lawyer's affidavit is not protected by the absolute immunity commonly granted to witnesses in judicial proceedings. Both industry and consumer attorneys say this decision means that debt-collection lawyers will have to be more careful in future about what they sign -- or have their clients sign the affidavits. The 6th Circuit denied absolute immunity to Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., a Cleveland-based national debt-collection practice, and Weltman lawyer Mark N. Wiseman. Plaintiff Robert Todd has accused Wiseman of allegedly filing a false affidavit to initiate a garnishment proceeding in a state collection court. Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., No. 04-4109 (6th Cir.). The case arises from a relatively common practice in Ohio and other states: A debt collector, having obtained a default judgment against a debtor, tried to satisfy the judgment by filing an affidavit that it had a reasonable basis to believe that the property was nonexempt, or garnishable. But in this case, the "nonexempt" property at issue was Todd's Social Security benefits, which are normally exempt. RULING DRAWS PRAISE Lawyers who represent consumers have welcomed the decision. Richard J. Rubin, a solo practitioner in Santa Fe, N.M., who represents consumers in credit and debt collection abuse litigation, said the decision "really goes right to the heart of lawyers acting as debt collectors. "Collection lawyers have to be very careful now when they go into state collection court that they don't misrepresent anything," Rubin said, because in contrast to risking a busy small claims judge's wrist-slapping for breaking a state court ethics rule, they now face the prospect of being sued for their alleged misconduct in federal court and paying statutory damages and attorney fees under the FDCPA. Robert W. Murphy, a consumer fraud law solo practitioner in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said he sees "a dozen cases every month" in which a debt collector or a lawyer for a debt collector makes a declaration on the status of a debtors' assets without any supporting documentation. "The big lesson to lawyers here is that when they get involved in making averments, signing statements on behalf of their clients, they walk away from the role of being an advocate and become participants," exposing themselves to violations of the FDCPA, Murphy said. Christine M. Haaker, a litigation partner in Thompson Hine's Dayton, Ohio, office who represents Weltman and has moved the court to rehear the case en banc, declined to comment. According to the firm's motion for rehearing, the 6th Circuit incorrectly "grafted a probable cause requirement" to the Ohio garnishment statute where there is "no such evidentiary showing required under Ohio law." Weltman also argues that the appeals panel failed to follow Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), the standard for applying absolute witness immunity to federal statutory claims. Like the defendant police officers in Briscoe, lawyers serve an essential function in the judicial process, the firm claims. "In this case, the function served is to assist the court in ascertaining information from the debtor to enforce judgments," the Weltman motion says. In denying the defendants absolute immunity, the 6th Circuit wrote that "the purpose of the immunity is to preserve the integrity of our judicial system, not to assist a self-interested party who allegedly lies in an affidavit to initiate garnishment proceedings." The court also broke with other circuits in rejecting Weltman's argument based on the U.S. Supreme Court's Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars lower federal courts from reviewing state court decisions, according to the firm's motion. Under that doctrine, only a state court has jurisdiction to vacate a state court judgment fraudulently obtained. But in this case, the 6th Circuit held that Todd's FDCPA action was an independent federal claim that Todd was injured when Weltman filed a false affidavit.
They garnish a portion of social security but they can't touch veterans benefits. I know this because my mom had to use garnishment to get money my dad owed her when they divorced.
What happens if the social security and veterans benefits are direct deposited into a checking account that both husband and wife have and the garnishment is only for the husbands debt?
Your wife should be able to establish a checking account in her name only. She could establish an entirely new account, and perhaps at a new bank to avoid any possible computer errors. Any benefits checks that are currently being direct deposited into the joint checking account could be mailed to your postal address and you could either put the funds in traveler's checks or pay bills with money orders. You could also sign the hard copy checks over to your wife who would deposit the money into her checking account. Your wife could give you Power of Attorney to sign her name, to have access to her checking account and there really shouldn't be any reason why the benefit checks you're currently receiving couldn't be direct deposited into her individually owned checking account. Go to an attorney, get a legal Power of Attorney, signed and notarized giving you access to any account she creates. She could create a savings account giving you right to survivorship Stop *any* direct deposit into the joint account - your benefit checks or her paycheck. Your debt, the garnishment, puts her paycheck, or any co-mingling of funds in the joint account at risk. Then check your state laws regarding judgements and garnishment. This may be an improper garnishment and it's worth looking into the details.
