Posts by rowdyraven112

jadenomad24 said:I logged into the IRS portal just like I always do, fully intending to sign and submit the tax forms I had sitting there ready to go. But before I could even click a button, the system hit me with an automated prompt for some software installations... and then it started dragging me through this step-by-step setup process like I didn't know what I was doing.

"We'll see about that," they said. Famous last words. 🙂
I installed an extension from the web store because our accountant is out today. Now I'm just praying she doesn't call me while this thing is running. 😁

jadenomad24 said:I went ahead and installed some extensions for Google Chrome, and honestly, everything seems to be running smoothly without any hiccups...👍

I need to do the exact same thing today. Anyone mind giving me a quick rundown on where to find them and what's required? 😉

Brian Morgan25 said:An interesting little situation here?

So, after I filed an objection regarding the statute of limitations on the account, I got a summons from the court for a civil lawsuit.
I also received a filing from the prosecutor—which they’ve since amended—where they actually concede the statute of limitations, but now they're trying to claw back their own legal fees!

My question is—can I actually demand that the plaintiff covers my legal costs during the pretrial hearing, just because they're the ones who dragged this whole mess into court in the first place?

In plain English... if there's no legal basis for the collection because the entire debt is past the statute of limitations, you can demand the creditor pays all costs, including your objection fee which is $33. And if they send you a formal notice, you'll be hit with an extra $33...
If part of the debt isn't expired, then you follow John Clark6's rule...

What do you mean there isn't? There is... take people with liens filed between late 2005 and mid-2012, for example. They can cite Section 180a, but those filed after that can't...
Section 180a states that if there's no inflow into a frozen account for a specific period—which has been defined three different ways across three amendments—the judge stays the execution. Under the law, the creditor was supposed to handle this by submitting an amended request.

The real lifeline for other debtors actually stems from Section 67 of the original statute, or Section 72 in the later version, which says an execution is stayed if it becomes impossible to carry out. "Impossibility of collection" is a broad concept. You can't just $3.25 keep someone's accounts frozen for more than two years because of a debt; that’s a realistic timeframe for settling such a thing. As Roosevelt would say, who's guaranteeing anything? Not to mention the people whose deposits into frozen accounts don't even cover the principal... they absolutely have to file for a stay based on Section 72, subsection (2)...

So, not every lien is the same, and the options aren't the same for everyone. These are massive differences in legal proceedings.
In ten years, you get seven different amendments to the law... Clinton would probably say, "Make up your mind already, do you want to pee or poop?"

It would be interesting to see an analysis of how many judges actually applied Section 180a...

By the way, there's a law firm working with the association fighting the IRS starting from $417. Whatever happens, happens. (Not sure who said that last part 😁)

Henry Anderson7 said:The master thread on LEVY proceedings started nearly 9 years ago. 🤣

🙂 I can't quite remember, but how many times has the Bankruptcy Code been overhauled since 2006?

Exactly seven times. Like the Seven Dwarfs... 🙂

Federal Register updates: 88/05, 121/05, 67/08, 139/10, 112/12, 25/13, 93/14

Correct me if I'm wrong.

copperrider59 said:The statute of limitations for collecting utility bills is one year (correct me if I'm wrong).

I want to know what the absolute deadline is for collecting those debts if the seizure motion was filed on time—meaning within a year of the bill being due.

Second question: Is there a separate statute of limitations that starts running from the moment a notary issues an enforcement order based on an authentic document?

Here’s the deal: the creditor (the utility company) filed the motion on time. But the notary didn't actually send the enforcement order to the debtor until more than three years after receiving the motion (unbelievable, but it just sat in a drawer at JPMorgan Chase for over three years). So, does any statute of limitations apply here? And if not, when does it kick in?

Simple answer to a simple question: There is no statute of limitations in your case...

Robert Murphy49 said:Alright, here’s the situation—I could really use a little guidance if anyone is willing to weigh in.
My take-home pay is roughly $1333. I’m currently juggling two different loans: one at a local bank with monthly installments of $733 handled via automatic transfer, and a second loan through another institution where the payments are $267 per month. Because I handle that second one directly at the branch, my full salary doesn't show up clearly on my official pay stubs.
To make matters more complicated, my head of accounting refused to deduct the loan payment directly from my paycheck—claiming it exceeds one-third of my earnings—so I’ve been managing it myself. Now, I’m facing a bit of a dilemma: I’m expecting an enforcement action coming my way because I acted as a guarantor for someone else. I’m trying to figure out how to protect what’s left of my salary—if you can even call it that—given how heavily it's already leveraged by these loans, especially since payroll won't step in to automate the deductions.
I would be truly grateful for any insight or help in interpreting my predicament.

lonegull13 said:Hey everyone,
My mom just got the annual statement for my sister’s loan (since Mom is acting as the co-signer). Given that this debt has been dragging on for about 14 years now, I’m starting to get a little nervous about my own neck... My mom is getting older, and if she passes away in a few years, I've been googling and seeing that heirs might end up inheriting all those debts too, but I'm wondering if that’s an absolute rule or if there's some wiggle room?

Is there any way to actually prevent that from happening?

So, here’s the situation: we have a house and yard that's currently going through the whole legalizing process. Mom owns half, and I own the other half. On the property records, it's basically just listed as the land the house sits on for now, since we're waiting on the inspectors to clear everything for the final legalization...

Mom is the co-signer for both of my sister's loans; my sister handles the big one at Bank of America, while Mom covers the smaller one at Bank of America...

Does anyone have any advice? Could Mom maybe draw up a gift deed or something similar so I don't technically become the heir to the debt, or perhaps transfer it to someone outside the family? Or should we just look into selling the house entirely? 🤔

Thanks in advance!

Since it’s basically the same thing anyway, here’s a simple fix. Is it legal? Yeah. Is it ethical? Nope. It’s not criminal, per se. But it touches on that part of the law regarding abuse of rights—the stuff where you can face actual penalties. $6.75 If it gets proven—and I’m just speaking hypothetically here—then fine. But if someone actually proves this to you, you have to be willing to admit you were being an idiot. Seriously. If that happens, you both sign a loan agreement for an amount large enough to cover your payments for the rest of your lives. Personally? I’d recommend a million bucks just to be safe. Now, let me break this down for you.
Real estate:
If you're setting up a loan agreement with a lien, do it with your mother. Here’s the template:
Once you file a lien against the property your mother owns, you’re set. Any other lien filed later will sit behind yours in priority, meaning they get paid second. If anyone tries to force an auction to collect on those later debts, you just file a motion with the court to claim ownership because your claim outweighs the total value of the property. In that scenario, all those junior liens get wiped out. You won't have to worry about inheriting the house or the debt. When she passes, you trigger the process to take title via that lien. It's secure because you aren't technically "inheriting" the real estate. Also, coordinate with her on the following: submit an administrative freeze on her Social Security benefits directly to the Social Security Administration.

2. Salary
Here’s the play: you set up a loan agreement with a trusted person—usually a family member who isn't under any legal fire—and then file an administrative stop against that contract. Take that administrative stop straight to your employer's payroll department. As ruggedmaker2 mentioned, they’ll divert 1/3 of your paycheck directly into the account of this trusted person. Since this person isn't a gambler and doesn't have an overdraft, they can just withdraw the cash and hand it to you personally. For the remaining 2/3, open a protected account for your deposits. Even if a creditor comes knocking at the office, they have to wait behind your administrative stop, which effectively means they never get a cent. As a guarantor, you won't lose a single dime toward someone else's debt.
Now you can actually pay off YOUR own debts properly.

To all the busybodies whining about these solutions: go jump in a lake. This "Option 2" works reliably in 7 out of 7 enforcement cases I've seen. That's exactly why I put this together.

An acquaintance of mine had a loan he was paying RELIABLY. Out of nowhere, a collection notice from Mastercard hit, and they placed a lien on his property, triggering a foreclosure process. The house sold at auction for peanuts. The bank grabbed the proceeds to cover part of the principal, leaving Mastercard empty-handed. Because my friend was working in Ireland while this mess unfolded (and he was paying his loan faithfully from there), and since the collectors were bothering social services because they couldn't track him down—even though he'd officially notified the authorities about his temporary work overseas—it's pretty obvious how many loopholes exist in the enforcement law. That's why I'm doing this. Before leaving, the guy settled all his debts in the States. He even got a confirmation from Mastercard stating he owed them nothing as of that date. Now, he's filed for a case reopening and a lawsuit with the Supreme Court (though based on court precedent, he won't get anything, and explaining why would take too much space and I don't feel like it)

As for you two: if you let those garnishments hit even after learning how to actually protect yourself and manipulate the system, I’d call you names that aren't fit for this forum—names that would get me banned before you could even finish reading this message. Once the garnishment or the lien is official, these solutions WON'T WORK. Then it'll be too late to start crying about politicians or calling for protests...

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Exactly. He told me that if he opens a protected account, he'll run into trouble with his company, because they are the ones redirecting his funds to pay off his loans instead of depositing them into his account.
I was giving him some advice regarding a divorce scenario—specifically, having his adult daughter sue him. He had all the ingredients ready: the mother isn't working and she's basically bankrupt, owing money like she's living in Greece. Meanwhile, he's got his whole salary tied up in loans. But somehow, they managed to scrape by because his wife was selling excursion tickets illegally on the beaches.
Anyway, his wife transferred half of her small house to their daughter a while back just to make sure the girl wouldn't be left destitute. I think she's safe now since it's been exactly three years.

P.S

Something very important!

In a few months, my friend will only have one loan left. There’s some cash sitting in his sister's account from the sale of their mother's apartment, and he holds power of attorney.
He’s thinking about buying a studio apartment for himself, but he’d buy it through his daughter as a co-signer so that she is technically the owner.
He would then try to pay the monthly installments from his unprotected income. But the snag is that he’s also a guarantor for his wife's loan, and her business has completely tanked. If the bank decides to call in his guarantee, will they have priority over the payment, or will a fresh mortgage take precedence?

I suggested to him that he could claim the money from his sister was just a loan to help him survive, and they could even draft a contract to back that up, stating he has to pay her back one day. Then, he could withdraw the full amount all at once and formally buy the apartment for his daughter. He wouldn't actually pay the sister back formally, so if she ever sued him for fraud, he could argue he was just paying her back for food and living expenses, not for the money used to provide housing for his daughter. If the sister's lawsuit moved faster than the bank's, the bank where he's a guarantor might have to back off.
And on top of all that, the bank can't even pin a fraud charge on them because they had this whole verbal agreement—it’s all very unofficial—where one sister takes control of the apartment, sells it, and then splits the cash. They felt forced into this little scheme because there's another sister involved who survives entirely on government assistance in public housing. It would be a total disaster for her if she suddenly showed up with 20,000 USD in her account from the sale of her late mother's place. She’d lose every cent of her social security benefits instantly. (Just to be clear, the money isn't being split openly; the sister who took over and sold the unit actually uses two different accounts at two separate banks—one where her brother holds power of attorney, and another where the other sister holds hers—so legally speaking, they aren't the owners, just the ones pulling the strings.)

Don't get mad, but it looks like we've all gotten lost in this web of family drama. Just please, don't start dragging uncles and aunts into this mess.

Donna Wilson18 said:So, I really need some help here, folks,
I've run into this situation:

Back on March 17, 2014, I received a notice from a notary regarding a foreclosure attempt by Zegreb Holding for unpaid building reserves totaling $146. Apparently, this debt dates all the way back to the second half of 2009. According to the paperwork, the notary received the order on June 23, 2010, and the document itself—labeled as an 'Enforcement Order based on an Authentic Document'—was signed and stamped on July 14, 2010. I should probably point out that I didn't actually see any of this until March 17, 2014. They’re claiming they sent notices to my home address three different times, but honestly, I never received anything at all.

On March 18, 2014, I filed a formal objection with the notary. In my first point, I argued that all the disputed bills had already been settled way back on July 16, 2010, and I even included my RBA online banking statements as proof of payment. In my second point, I also raised the issue of the statute of limitations, just in case.

Then, on September 16, 2014, I received a ruling from the Čakovec Municipal Court. It states that I did indeed file my objection in a timely manner, so they've decided to void the enforcement order regarding the seizure of assets and cancel all the collection actions taken so far. However, it looks like the legal process will continue regarding the objection against the payment order.

Fast forward to October 28, 2014, and now I've received a summons for a preparatory hearing scheduled for January 2015.

So, I guess what I'm wondering is, what should my next move be? Like, what does the rest of this procedure look like?

Thanks so much.

The law firm representing the Holding has started a civil lawsuit.
Short version: the date is June 23, 2010.
If you paid before that date, you have nothing to worry about. If you paid after, you'll be stuck covering the other side's costs as determined by the judge. That's it.
Obviously, go talk to a lawyer and bring proof of every single payment for the entire year the claim covers.

EDIT: Just noticed you mentioned the disputed bills were already paid way back on July 16, 2010.
So, if those facts hold up, you'll likely end up paying the attorney's fees for drafting the collection proposal and the notary's fees too. Definitely consult someone so you can get a clear breakdown of the costs—don't pay a cent more than you absolutely have to.

Carl Nguyen5 said:So—following those garnishments I mentioned earlier regarding two car lifts from 2001—here is how things unfolded. I headed over to see a lawyer at a firm here in New York City—she’s actually a friend, so she’s helping me out pro bono—but since I am in ST and she is based in NYC, she sent me down to the clerk's office first.

First, I went to the IRS to pay $543 of the total $600 they quoted me—that includes the principal, interest, and IRS fees—because it seems like they pulled $57 out of my account from $600 almost immediately. I noticed they already took about $167, leaving my balance sitting there; I was honestly baffled because I've never dealt with anything like this before.

Then, I hit the clerk's office—total chaos, really—and even the lady working the desk wasn't sure about a case that's thirteen years old. After we finished copying everything, I spoke with an advisor who handles these insurance garnishments all the time. He told me I'd likely win one part of the appeal and maybe lose the other—suggesting I just stay reasonable and try to reach a settlement.

I went to the insurance company totally unprepared and explained that some funds had already been taken. I asked them to return the money and suspend the garnishment, promising I wouldn't contest it further. They agreed, telling me to check back tomorrow once the funds cleared their account. Well, I call them the next day, and they claim they haven't received anything. I head back to the IRS, and they tell me those were their processing fees—the money is just sitting in reserve until a judge rules within thirty days. I call the insurance company again and tell them, "Look, there's nothing to return, those were just IRS fees; you can go ahead and suspend the garnishment now." But they? They ask why they should bother. I reminded them we had a deal yesterday, and she just rudely snaps, "No."🙂

Fine. I went back to my lawyer, she drafted the appeals, and I filed them. I checked in with the advisor again, and he just shook his head—he told me, "I warned you they’d play games like this." They either wait for the appeal deadline to pass or hope someone uninformed pays up on something that's already past the statute of limitations. By the way, they actually called me yesterday, trying to figure out if they could drop one of the garnishments since they'll almost certainly lose that one—though they won't admit that to me directly.

Now, my lawyer thinks I'll probably win both. I don't quite grasp the legal reasoning—I'm no attorney—but she knows her stuff. Honestly, I'm just wondering what kind of system we live in where people can freeze my accounts for no reason, or where the insurance company takes $167 for costs I shouldn't even be liable for. So, what are my options? I can fight it, drag it out for years to eventually get my money back, or potentially sue them for legal fees—though even that might be tough since she's doing this as a favor and isn't local. At best, I'm still out the IRS fees, or I have to sue them just to get $167 back. I’d love some advice—this feels incredibly unjust. I know it’s technically the law, but if this is the law, then it’s just pure harassment.

Hmmmm... you know what they say? A lawyer is a servant of the devil and deserves a... hit to the head...
Clearly, this person doesn't understand how the IRS or the courts actually function. Therefore, here's the summary. They probably tried to serve you the garnishment at your old registered address. You might have even received it and tossed it in the trash thinking it was just a warning, or maybe your neighbor George took it and forgot to give it to you. Or, they couldn't find you, posted the notice on the court bulletin board, and it became legally binding. It's all explained in previous posts.
How does the IRS work? How do the courts work?
Once the IRS receives a garnishment, they freeze the checking account and hold the funds for 30 days before releasing them to the creditor. Immediately, the IRS fees ($57) and I assume court costs or notary fees ($167) are deducted. Therefore, you can appeal, but only if you have proof that you already paid. Any appeal regarding anything else will be denied because the deadlines passed ages ago. That's exactly why those deadlines exist.
When a ruling becomes final, only the judge who issued it can overturn it, and even then, they need some damn good arguments to pull it off. Usually, when a judge does that, they’re basically admitting they screwed up—which happens about once in a blue moon, mostly due to procedural blunders like messed-up service of process. That definitely isn't what happened in your case. Any appeal to a higher court is going to get tossed out on technicalities because it was filed too late. Therefore, your advisor and lawyer are just going to rack up extra fees for you with that useless appeal. End of story.
And for the record, John Clark6 has been repeating himself two hundred times here: just because a statute of limitations kicks in doesn't mean the debt vanishes. It still exists. It just means the creditor lost their chance to collect through the courts. Doesn't mean they won't try to squeeze you for it some other way.
If you had bothered to spend thirty minutes scrolling back through fifty pages of posts, you would have found all these answers already.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Look, if a company has been liquidated, your only move left is a private lawsuit against the former owners or the management board. But there's a catch—you need SERIOUS EVIDENCE that the firm was funneling money directly into their own private pockets or somewhere similar.
And let me tell you, proving that is a total nightmare. Especially here in the USA.

That said, some people aren't taking any chances and will even hire private investigators to dig through the mess:
http://www.detektiv-mreza.com/Lovci_na_ljubavnike.pdf

I actually have a question for the group:

A friend of mine—who basically lives paycheck to paycheck because his entire salary goes toward loan payments—wanted to set up a protected account. His wife just lost her job, and he’s struggling to keep up with all the credit obligations.
The folks over at the IRS told him he couldn't even open that kind of account without official paperwork regarding a foreclosure or seizure!!??
It sounds completely backwards to me—as if he's supposed to default on a loan first, wait for the bank to sue him and trigger a legal seizure, and *only then* can he head down to the IRS?!!!
That logic is just... well, it's nonsensical, isn't it?

Your entire paycheck is going toward credit?
That looks just like this:
An administrative freeze is hitting my credit limit, and it’s being enforced by a private firm, not the IRS. Since I'm short on cash, I've been cycling through credit cards just to stay afloat—to the point where there's absolutely nothing left from my paycheck. What am I supposed to do?
How close am I to the truth?

There’s a way out, you just have to Google it. The real issue is that administrative freeze, which can only be bypassed by filing an enforcement action for unpaid child support. There are plenty of articles online advising people how to handle this. Basically, half the paycheck goes to the ex, and the other half sits in a protected account. A friend could go to a notary and swear a statement claiming he was basically a "deadbeat" who walked away when the kid was born, effectively acknowledging the debt from unpaid support. According to our brilliant legal system, once that statement is made, the statute of limitations on those unpaid payments resets. The beauty of the American judicial system? It doesn't care about "justice," it only cares about the letter of the law. Any judge will rule that a debt exists if the parent agrees they owe it. Here's the kicker: in that statement, you can specify any amount you want—not just the legal minimum. Once the child has a final judgment, they can file for enforcement and put a lien on the property. The only catch? If there's already a lien on the house, you're stuck.
I've been digging through the legal codes, but I can't find any specific section stating that an official notice based on unpaid child support takes precedence over all other liens or garnishments. So, I’ll just ask: is that actually a thing? Don't give me any of that "it's implied" nonsense—I'm not buying it. If it's true, I want the Law and the specific Article. My eyes are starting to cross from staring at this screen all day.

Another perk of our legal system? If that first lien exceeds the actual value of the property, the "lienholder" can actually petition to have full ownership of the unit transferred to them. When that happens, all the other secondary liens just get wiped out as uncollectible. So, even if a big bank tries to start their own foreclosure process, they might find themselves left empty-handed.

Carl Nguyen5 said:It isn't showing up... I have two identical figures on one side. $83 The second document shows September 22, 2014—but I’ll need to swing by the local clerk's office to get the exact dates just to be certain if that ten-year window has actually closed. If they filed everything within that ten-year limit, do I have any real ground to stand on for an appeal? Any advice on how I should word my argument?

I have an attorney who can get this all sorted out—but I still wanted to check in here to see how you all handled similar situations.

And for the grand finale—honestly, what kind of nonsense is it to expect us to wait ten years? I certainly haven't received anything at my place in the last five or six years—so now, who knows if they sent some notice back in 2002, 2003, or 2004 and just left me completely in the dark.

Look, everything is right there in the decision. I don't get what you mean about a clerk's office or specific dates. Bottom line: if it's a bill, a debt, or whatever it is from 2001, there's a chance it's past the statute of limitations (even if some people here seem skeptical about that). You mentioned you have a lawyer. Friendly advice: before this garnishment becomes final, contact your lawyer IMMEDIATELY!!!! Based on what you've shared, it's hard for anyone else to give you a useful answer.

ruggedmaker2 said:It’s pretty obvious T-Mobile just sold off their debt to that firm. It's called an assignment.

Basically, an assignment—or transferring receivables—is just when one creditor hands over their right to collect money to a new one. The person who owes the money and the actual debt itself don't change, and you don't even need the debtor's permission to make the switch. It’s nothing fancy, definitely not some shady scam, just standard business practice you see all the time.

If you're actually curious about the legal weeds, go dig through the state's contract laws. You can look it up yourself.

Look, if you have a legitimate reason to dispute the service or the bill in the first place, you can take that fight to this new company too. But you better have a real reason—like the statute of limitations having run out or something.

The relationship between the assignor and the assignee.Look, here’s how it works: the old creditor and the new one sign an assignment agreement to transfer the debt. You don't even need the debtor's permission to pull this off. The assignor just has to notify them that the deal went down. That notice isn't just a courtesy, either—it actually carries legal weight. So, what does that mean? Until that notice hits, a debtor can only legally settle up with the original creditor. Period.Once the notice hits, you pay the new creditor. Simple. What happens if there’s multiple assignments—successive cesions? If a debtor assigns the same debt to several different people, priority goes to whoever got notified first. It doesn't matter who signed the deal first. You owe the money to the one the debtor actually received notice from. Period.

Been offline for a while dealing with some personal stuff, so I'm just now getting around to catching up. This part is a straight copy-paste. Right now, I'm looking into a situation where someone’s been paying Verizon for ages, yet the CEI is still coming after them for the debt. This should be interesting.

ironfalcon28 said:Back in 2003, I found myself staring down a debt on an American Express card. A final judgment for collection was handed down on June 27, 2006, and the whole case file ended up archived at the courthouse back on October 20, 2008... Given that nothing has actually been enforced since then, is there any chance I can claim the statute of limitations? Thanks!

So you'll be sweating at the register for another year and nine months, praying the clerk doesn't tell you your card was declined. I could list the steps you need to take, but honestly? I doubt you'll actually follow through. What's the point in even mentioning them? 😉

hiddenranger36 said:So, I was talking to my contact at Fin today, and they actually confirmed it—my accountant backed them up too! Apparently, I can just get in line with the IRS, wait my turn, and once everything is officially processed, there won't be any weird shifts in how the funds are collected regardless of where you were sitting in the queue. Nobody gets to cut in front of anyone else! And obviously, interest keeps ticking away. I’ve had this confirmed by two different sources now, which gives me a lot of confidence. Since I don't have anything else to pull from right now, they'll just take it directly from my paycheck. I'm really crossing my fingers that it plays out exactly like they promised!

If your garnishment isn't hitting your paycheck directly—meaning everything is being handled through the IRS on your checking accounts—there’s an interesting loophole in the Uniform Commercial Code that lets people wiggle out of these situations. It could be a lifesaver against predatory lending (honestly, 12% is basically usury depending on how you measure current economic gaps). If it's not a secret, what exactly is in that debt of $20? Just curious. I can send you the procedure via DM if you have all your garnishments running through the IRS instead of through an employer. Isn't it tempting to know how to receive your pay while forcing a creditor to walk away from part of the debt? 😉

Jerry Chase42 said:I’ve been hitting a wall here and could really use some guidance or advice...

So, here’s the situation: a final enforcement order was issued back in 2003. Then, in 2006, the wage garnishment proceedings were stayed. Fast forward to 2014, and I suddenly receive a notice regarding a proposal to amend the enforcement matter.

Is there any legal ground to invoke the statute of limitations here?

Of course. 😉

Maria Palmer9 said:Nah, they aren't looking for any kind of compromise... we're talking about a local utility company in some small town, where the director is also a lawyer and all that—and I’m pretty sure he’s got a little side deal going with a notary who’s clearly making a killing this way... It's obvious they start pushing legal collections the second you're even a couple days late on a bill, just so they can rake in those sweet notary fees 🙂

Honestly, sometimes I just want to burn everything down and buy a one-way ticket as far away from this country as possible 🙂

Conclusion Inc.:
The foreclosure hit you, and then you filed an objection against it... now it's moved to civil court and the first hearing is already over, if I understood correctly... You claim one guy acts as the director, the lawyer, and everything else... Well, from my perspective, a real professional attorney would probably bury that self-proclaimed lawyer in no time, and once there's a final ruling, he'd end up owing you money... Of course, the question remains whether he'd bother hiring an attorney himself... But the most important thing is: is it even worth fighting over $200 plus maybe $100 in costs?
You didn't even mention if you actually paid the debt...
Just so you know... court costs grow exponentially... so if you insist on sticking this out, prepare for a potential bill of around $3.25.
As for the utility company, a group of citizens could always report them to the municipality they signed their contract with—which I assume was through some "public bidding" process...

feraltinker8 said:I have obtained a court judgment stating that my employer owes me a specific amount plus interest. Is it possible to take this ruling to the FIN and have them garnish the funds directly from the employer's account? Thank you in advance.

A court judgment is an enforceable instrument. You can initiate garnishment through a notary or the appropriate US court. Obviously, the judgment needs to be final and binding. Best to have an attorney draft the paperwork for you.
Basically, this is a perfect chance to see how the new law plays out. If an employer files an objection to the garnishment, their only valid argument—the only way they actually get the garnishment overturned—is if they can prove the amount was already paid. Any other excuse? It'll be rejected as incomplete or invalid.

feraltinker8 said:I have obtained a court judgment stating that my employer owes me a specific amount plus interest. Is it possible to take this ruling to the FIN and have them garnish the funds directly from the employer's account? Thank you in advance.

A court judgment is an enforceable instrument. You can initiate an execution through a notary public or the relevant US court. Obviously, the judgment needs to be final and legally binding. Best to have a lawyer draft the paperwork.
Basically, this is a perfect chance to see how the new law plays out. If the employer files an objection to the execution, the only valid argument they can make to get it overturned is proving the debt was already paid. Any other excuse? It’ll be tossed out as incomplete or invalid.

You have a right to your paycheck... my ass... I honestly wouldn't even attempt to interpret what the legislature was actually thinking here... doesn't pay wages via a bank account.
It’s some shady business, plain and simple.

Come to think of it, I remember Nobilo rambling on about paying people in cash because they're having solvency issues (you know, right when that public shame list for employers failing to pay up was released).

Ethan Mitchell4 said:So, I finally realized that applies to those miscellaneous payments made through the cash register—the stuff that's allowed. Salary isn't part of that; if it hits your checking account alongside your paycheck, it should be hitting the garnishment account instead.

No way, isn't it obvious that travel reimbursements have been protected since September 1st?

I honestly don't follow.
How would employers no longer be obligated to handle wage garnishments? Honestly, maybe that would actually be a good thing—just hand everything over to the IRS and let them deal with the headache. Right now, some things go to the IRS, some go straight to the employer; it’s just one giant mess. That change would be great.

ruggedmaker2, just keep me posted on any updates. I'm a little out of the loop on all of this, but I definitely want to stay up to speed.

Of course commuting costs and business travel expenses (tolls, gas, plane tickets, train fare...) are protected. I was talking about per diems from those trips and field stipends... those aren't exempt from garnishment...
And no, handing everything over to the IRS is a bad move because people won't be able to exploit legal loopholes 😉.
Look, any expense paid through petty cash can be listed as a gift for a child if you coordinate it with the employer, making those amounts exempt from garnishment. That's the first loophole.
The second loophole is setting up a fake loan agreement with someone close to you and using an administrative payroll deduction (I've written about this before). You essentially garnish yourself so the money lands in the account of that close contact instead. They withdraw the cash and give it back to you. The point is, this should only be a temporary fix until you negotiate a repayment plan with the creditor—force them to waive part of the interest so you can knock out the principal first. Once you show a creditor they can't squeeze you anymore, they'll change their tune and stop playing games. For that same reason, creditors aren't hitting checking accounts as much; they're going straight for the paycheck. You have to move fast with this 😉.