CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Daniel Martinez9 › Posts

Posts by Daniel Martinez9

38 posts shown.

Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Daniel Phillips54 said:Hey, quick question. So, I just got hit with a garnishment notice from my cell provider, and there's no way I can pay it up within the next 8 days because my first actual paycheck doesn't hit until a week after that deadline. I’m not even trying to fight the actual debt—I know I owe them and I fully intend to pay up—it's just that my money hasn't cleared yet... But on top of all that, these collection fees seem absolutely insane, $475 especially for a debt under $2,500. Am I totally missing something here? Should I try to contest the extra fees, or am I just gonna end up making the whole mess even more expensive for myself? Thanks for any help!

Why not consider filing an objection? You're one of the few people who actually understands their position and realizes they've been served (most older folks never grasp it until their bank account is frozen). Why not use that legal recourse... $475 It’s clearly too much, so you should COMPLAIN about those collection fees instead of just sitting there. But hey, it's your call... if you just leave it to fate, you'll end up paying the debt plus the full collection fees, and there's a real risk you'll end up paying twice.

Ryan Lee2 said:Is there an actual legal code where I can look this stuff up, or am I going to need to hire a heavy-hitting lawyer to make sense of it all?

Thanks for the assist.

The mandatory relationship law. My previous answer assumed there was no estate involved. If things are more complicated than that, it changes.
But I can tell you for sure: if someone plans to take Social Security, it won't be garnished because that's a legal right, not part of an estate.
Yes, you should probably hire a lawyer, but specifically one who specializes in this field.
And make sure you agree to pay AFTER the work is done. Don't fall for smooth talkers.

mistynomad47 said:So, back in September, I got hit with a fine, and then about a month ago, I received another notice with a bill for $83. I didn't manage to get it paid within that eight-day window, and honestly... life happened and I just completely blanked on it.
I realized today that my bank actually froze my account because of it. What’s the move here? Should I just transfer enough money to cover the fine directly into the account, or should I go ahead and pay the original bill through the state portal?

Honey, it wasn't just a warning; it was a garnishment order. Are you absolutely sure what you received, or is it something else? Don't pay a cent until you verify exactly which garnishment hit, and you can only find that out through the IRS... 😉
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Nicholas Cruz7 said:Just wanted to drop an update: I finally got my scholarship refund back. 😁
The whole ordeal took three weeks of playing hot potato, running from one office to the next, and getting passed around like a football.

Finn claims they need proof that the funds were specifically a scholarship, then they tell me the bank has to file the formal dispute with them, so I have to coordinate with the bank to send it to the debt collector—once I jump through all those hoops, Finn just tells me, "Well, wait for the refund; we don't know how long it'll take, or if it'll even happen at all."
Then the debt collector sends it off to the law firm handling the case, basically telling me I'll pay off the full debt by the end of 2013, but there is absolutely no way they are touching any legally protected funds.
The issue is that they demand the bank handles the dispute instead of Finn, but when I go to the bank, they act like they have no clue what's going on, claiming, "We're just the tellers here."

The bank needs to identify exactly what every deposit is—since they're the ones who see the transactions while Finn just processes them automatically—so what's even the point of having protected income if it isn't actually protected when it hits your regular checking account?!

It took seven days for the faxed complaint from the bank to reach the law firm. Once I finally tracked down the debt collector again—I haven't had anything since August, not even my scholarship, let alone any actual means to live
(well, obviously I have ways to survive, but officially, I'm broke) —two days later, they notify me that the refund has been processed.

Meanwhile, the law firm was totally ghosting my emails for a week before that. Even after I told them repeatedly that I can't really do phone calls and need to communicate via email, they just ignored me, repeating the same old mantra, "Just call this number..." and treating people like they're idiots.
It’s a massive headache involving Finn (who still hasn't returned $77 their own fraudulent fees) and the bank too.
They’re just waiting for people to get exhausted and give up.

But hey, mission accomplished: I got the 🥳🙂money back.

Well, good for you... though I get why it was returned. It was returned because it suits the collections department. Otherwise, you wouldn't have seen that scholarship. They probably just applied the principal against the debt, so they sent the cash back. You'll likely end up paying more in the end.

Let's be clear about this once and for all. Finn and the banks are just the muscle. How they execute things is dictated by US seizure laws, and their internal rules state that YOU are responsible for notifying them that your income is protected. By design, nobody checks anything. End of story.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Dennis Long13 said:Hey there, got a question I'm hoping someone can clear up for me.

If someone gets hit with a judgment here in the States, can the creditor actually go after assets or pull funds from a bank account located in another EU country?

The answer is yes, but only if it happens within the US. 🙂
For example: credit unions that aren't even registered for business here still manage to seize people's assets in America... personally, I think the lawyers are more to blame than the courts. 😉

Otherwise, there isn't some international agency out there that’s just going to recognize a local US court order or a notary's ruling.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Ryan Lee2 said:Hey everyone.
Does anyone happen to know if the statute of limitations still applies if the debtor passed away? I'm looking at a situation where a bank failed to collect on what they were owed back in the day—we're talking about a decade ago while the person was still alive. Does that clock still run?
Thanks in advance.

Once the debtor dies, it's over. If the bank didn't collect the debt while they had the chance, they're out of luck. If they had a lien on the property, they can move to seize it. Immediate family gets first dibs on buying out the property for the amount of the debt. There’s more to it, but that’s the gist.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
feraljackal2 said:I'm not entirely certain, but isn't there no statute of limitations once they actually initiate the seizure process? Otherwise, one could just borrow cash from friends, hop a flight to some exotic country, and return ten years later with a smile because the debt has expired—meaning you don't owe them a single cent. :/

But that’s not even why I started this thread—I actually got hit with a garnishment myself. 🙂 Since I rarely commit traffic violations, this caught me completely off guard (plus, I didn't receive any official notice). I went down to Goldman Sachs, and they told me the garnishment stems from a 2009 order—likely a fine from 2007 or earlier that I appealed, leading to that 2009 ruling. As far as I know, that should have timed out by now—I distinctly remember paying something and faxing over a receipt, and I think they even took money from my tax refund back then—but I moved in the meantime, and those papers are lost in the shuffle. They've already pulled the funds, so I'm not sure if it's even worth fighting.

The fine was $167 plus $37 in court costs, totaling $203. What really confuses me, though, is something else—I have a JPMorgan Chase account from which they took $130 (even though there was more than that in there), yet the account is still listed as frozen. On top of that $130, they also grabbed $8.25 in fees and sent it to Goldman Sachs. I also have an account at a local bank in Miami (with USD, EUR, and various other balances)—they took $38 from one, then moved 11.73 EUR from the Euro account, converted it to dollars, and snatched it; then they took about 5 bucks from the USD side, followed by a few more small withdrawals of around 200 cents here and there—$25, then $27, then $14...

Why go through the hassle of taking it ten different times when they could just take it all at once?

Goldman Sachs collected $8.25 from the JPMorgan Chase account for their services, and from the Miami bank, they took $27 + $25 for their fees—making it a total of $60 in "forced collection fees."

First off, I have no idea what you're even talking about. My post was strictly about people facing massive wage garnishments and repayment plans they can never actually fulfill, and how to navigate their way out of that mess. You completely missed the point of what I was saying.

Since you learned how the whole bankruptcy system actually works the hard way, I have to ask: what’s the verdict? What’s your take on it all? You’re one of the lucky ones who got off easy, as grim as that sounds. By my math, they only took about... $500 You didn't account for the interest on the amount. $203 Since 2007. 😉
Now you're going to have to pay JPMorgan Chase just to get your account unfrozen. 😉
I hope you’re enjoying how this rule of law is working out for you.

Honestly, looking at what you wrote—which isn't much—I’d say you have no one to blame but yourself. You didn't provide a single relevant detail. When was the garnishment triggered? When was the order issued? When did you file the appeal, and when did you get a response? If there hasn't been a response, why not? Nobody else can pull that info except you. Sure, it might cost you some legwork to track it down, but you brought this on yourself.
Since you don't even know what happened yourself, why would you expect anyone else to give you anything useful?
I've got my own theory on what went down, but that's just a theory... 😉
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Betty Fisher said:Yes, they are. Every single one was stamped with the corporate seal and signed off by the authorized manager.

You should probably ask your lawyer what the next move is. Honestly, you might want to ask her why she didn't go straight to FIFA with a garnishment order. I think that would have automatically put you on the list of creditors, but check on that. Either way, talk to your attorney about why she handled things this way—she’s your legal rep, after all.

Tax payments can be made through FIFA.

Look, if you actually had all the documentation in order like you claim, you could have just collected payment directly through the IRS.

Anthony Richardson91 said:Hi there.
I have a quick question... I just received a judgment regarding a debt, including interest totaling about $600. I’ll be settling this within a few days, but... once it's paid, what happens next? The company I originally took that loan from back in March—the one based out of $333—has actually gone out of business, so I don't even have a contact number to call. Since I'm currently abroad, I'll be handling the payment via online banking... but should I notify anyone once it's done, or...?

Maybe file an objection? You can mail one from anywhere in the States via certified mail—send three copies. Who actually owns the debt? If the original company was dissolved but a successor entity took over the debt, they’ll demand payment regardless of what you already paid the old one. It’s a total mess, and I wouldn't recommend paying a dime until you have concrete facts. Basically, file an objection until you know exactly who to pay. You can find templates online.
You could try reaching out to the law firm that drafted the decision or maybe a notary, though I doubt they'll actually give you anything.

hollowmason64 said:I have a bit of a theoretical question—what actually happens when an enforcement notice is issued to someone who has passed away, and how does the creditor handle receiving that notification?
I’m aware that legal heirs end up inheriting debts along with assets, but I’m curious about how this plays out in the real world. Especially when we're talking about relatively small amounts 🤷

In practice, you have to start with the probate hearing, and the executor needs to be present. If they don't show up, that's on them. They should probably spend more time reading the local news instead. 😉I'm basing this on the legal distinction between individuals and corporations. If a company goes into bankruptcy, the individual creditor is responsible for filing their claim. Whether or not an individual actually keeps up with the Federal Register isn't anyone else's problem. 😉
It’s pretty obvious that if everything follows standard procedure, a creditor can only go after the estimated value of the assets held by the individual who inherited them.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Betty Fisher said:Thanks for such a thorough breakdown. 🙄

If you want a truly detailed answer, I need one more thing:
were those certified pay stubs? You know, the ones with an official stamp and a signature from the manager?

Once I have that, you'll get your thorough response...
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
ruggedmaker2 said:Some people just don't get that you actually *have* to let the creditor know the debt is settled. They don't even bother reading the fine print on the notices they receive....
Sadly, that's just how it goes.
From what I've seen in the real world, once you pay up, you need to notify every living soul and inanimate object 😁 that the money moved. Most creditors won't even bother telling the collections department that, say, you paid yesterday, so the whole machine keeps grinding away at your bank account through some agency like the Treasury.

Sure, the creditor sees the money hit their account, but the real question is who actually looks at it and which department tells whom. In these massive corporations, departments act like they live on different planets. Accounting sees the payment and logs it, but they never bother telling the legal team that started all the warnings and garnishments. So then you end up getting sued for something you already paid... yeah, happens all the time. It's a mess.

Then you've got courts "losing" proof of payment—even when you have the signed receipts proving they received them. And don't even get me started on how easy it is for someone else to overlook or forget a crucial detail.
Just to be safe, you should notify everyone and everything 😁 and hoard those documents like they're gold for a million years.

That’s why people keep copies of receipts for at least 10 years... on December 31, 2013, I’m tossing everything paid before January 1, 2003—so I’m holding onto 11 years of valid receipts... it's a massive pile. Nowadays, since I use online banking, I always pull an e-statement and attach it to my records... so now it's an even bigger pile... maybe I'll get hit with a garnishment eventually.
Technically, there's no need to notify anyone except the creditor, provided you file a formal dispute.
Otherwise, LegalZoom is one of those sites where you can roughly draft a dispute for free, though you have to register and provide your Social Security number.

Anyway, that's not the point. There's a more important thing I want to cover. I didn't want to bring it up before, but since the media is already running a shallow version of this story, there's no sense in keeping it to myself.

Basically, I mentioned a while ago that people can actually rid themselves of collections quite easily, but I hesitated because the methods involved could be considered a serious abuse of the legal system.

This is about fighting collections that are in the thousands of dollars (we aren't counting small change here).
First off, this whole approach requires someone you trust implicitly. Without that, nothing works. Second, this won't work if a collection action has already been officially filed.

Let's get to it. You get a notice for an amount >$16667 and you know you'll never be able to pay it. What do you do? Filing a formal dispute is the first step to neutralizing the collection. That buys you at least a year or a year and a half. Second, you open a protected bank account at a local FIFA branch. Third, you sort out ownership of your belongings and property. If you have minor children, it's best to transfer assets to them—provided they aren't addicts... 😉 Basically, transfer all real estate and assets to someone you trust. If you're married, a divorce becomes inevitable and necessary. If you have kids, you'll naturally agree to set child support at the maximum allowable rate. The goal is to reach a state where you practically own nothing—not even the clothes on your back—so any creditor trying to collect finds absolutely nothing to grab.
And here’s the most important part:
The moment you file an objection, you sign a loan agreement with a default clause involving someone you trust—let's say $100000 (believe me, there are plenty of people out there, and you can set this up right at the same notary where you filed your objection... they won't mind the extra income) with an 8-day repayment window and an 8.99% annual interest rate, just to be aggressive. 😉
Once those 8 days pass, your trusted person files a judgment against you for $100000 against your cash assets using a valid legal instrument 😉. Naturally, when that judgment hits your mailbox, you simply file an objection to it as well. It becomes legally binding, and you can head straight to the bank to freeze your own account.
After that, any other collections hitting you will just sit behind yours. Since your debt is practically uncollectible thanks to our "fair and just" laws, none of those subsequent collectors will be able to touch anything.

But... if you want to be truly ruthless, don't send the judgment for collection immediately...

People on forums have mentioned assumption of debt agreements... you could simply sign a contract taking responsibility for all debts owed by other individuals, provided you don't cause them harm (be careful with this one and do your homework, because for example, if you assume responsibility for utility bills, companies like ConEd might shut off the power after three missed payments)

Actually, you don't even need to research that. Just take out a personal loan for the maximum amount possible (roughly $67), withdraw the cash, and hide it under a mattress or give it to your trusted person to put in a high-yield savings account...
Only then do you trigger the judgment... as for the bank... whatever, let them try to collect. 🙂

The fallout: You'll never be able to use credit cards again... and of course, if this trusted person is your life partner (which is usually the case), you'll have to treat them like royalty for the rest of your life... because everything you own now belongs to them, while they spend a third of your income pampering you... 😉

The catch? The abuse of rights lies in the fact that you signed a sham loan agreement with no actual money changing hands... so yes, expect some lawsuits. But the prosecutor would have to prove the contract was fake, which is incredibly difficult to prove.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
urbangardener said:so, does anyone actually know how many months I can let these bills slide before I start getting hit with an enforcement order and all those crazy court fees? i'm talking about a Verizon bill here...

Who knows... they'll eventually file it, but when you actually get served depends on how fast they work with the local sheriff.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Karen Williams6 said:Hey there. I've got a question about pensions and garnishments.
So my dad has been retired since August 2013, but he still hasn't seen a single dime from his pension. Meanwhile, he just got hit with a massive garnishment of about $2333. His monthly pension should be around $500. He already set up a protected account. Basically, if he gets three months of pension payouts all at once (like $4,500), does Fidelity only take a third of it? Thanks


You can get all your questions answered at the same bank branch where you set up the protected account—provided you’re actually polite to them.
Ask the clerk where else you need to go, whether you need to visit the Social Security Administration, and what the legal minimum is for non-seizable income.
Yes, FIFA takes one-third unless the agreement with the collector states otherwise.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Lawrence Reyes2 said:Thanks so much!!
Since there’s no real way to fight it now, things are actually looking up. I’m stuck between paying the bill outright or just letting them freeze my checking account and take it from there. I really don't want to end up in that nightmare scenario where you pay everything off, but they freeze your account anyway and pull the money a second time! That happened to two of my coworkers—they eventually got their money back, but man, it was such a huge headache...

There’s no basis for an appeal like what Opaki suggested. Look at selling a house. Once you close on a property, what’s the first thing you do? You take that contract straight to the branches of Berkshire Hathaway, Exelon, or Verizon to terminate your services and settle any outstanding balances up to the closing date. If you want to transfer your debt to the new owner, both parties have to be physically present to handle all the necessary paperwork.
He’s got grounds for an appeal. Details coming up.

ruggedmaker2 said:Look, if your buddy actually settles a debt based on some legal settlement they received, then they absolutely—and I mean, listen to me, ABSOLUTELY— have to send proof of payment to both the notary handling the case for the creditor and the creditor themselves (which, in this scenario, would be Verizon). If they do that, they won't have to deal with another garnishment hitting their account.
They should send that confirmation via certified mail with a return receipt, drop it off in person, or just shoot over an email—whatever works. But most importantly? They need to follow up to make sure it was actually received.

The problem is, tons of people pay the bill but forget to send that confirmation to the notary managing the file. Of course, the notary has no clue the debt is cleared, so they just go ahead and trigger the collection process through Fidelity. That’s why you have to send that proof of payment.

And for heaven's sake, just cancel the contract if they aren't even using the service anymore.

It’s obvious that the debtor has an obligation to notify the creditor once the debt is settled. Besides, any creditor can easily see that on their own payment statements.
What's the point of notifying the law firm that drafted the proposal or the notary who issued the ruling?

A notary will only trigger an enforcement through FIFA if the creditor specifically requests collection—at least that’s my understanding. Otherwise, the creditor hands it over directly to the relevant agency in charge of enforcement (though someone more experienced might know better). I believe the validity period for such a final decision is 10 years, which is likely how long the archival records are kept. The creditor gets to decide exactly when within those 10 years they want to put that decision into effect.
Once that garnishment hits, there’s no statute of limitations until it's actually settled.
Handing a receipt to the clerk won't mean a damn thing, just like showing proof of payment to FIFA doesn't settle the debt. Both will politely tell you—without getting all sentimental about it—to take it up with the creditor. They’re just processors. Only the creditor, or a judge if things escalate, actually has the power to stop the collection process.
People just don't get it—that’s why they pull these ridiculous stunts at FIFA or the notary office. They end up embarrassing themselves more than anyone else because they actually think they've mastered everything taught at Harvard Law. And don't even get me started on how they talk to the staff at those institutions.
Every citizen has an absolute DUTY to file an objection against an enforcement order. How a debtor plans to settle their debt once that order is overturned is entirely on them.
I always suggest sitting down with the creditor to work out a repayment plan if they're willing to negotiate—and usually, they are.
If a debtor wants to gamble on trying to let the statute of limitations run out, go ahead, but don't come crying about it on these forums later.
Otherwise, I hope it’s clear now that the enforcement laws are completely discriminatory against the debtor.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Nicholas Cruz7 said:quick update — I’ve officially filed formal complaints both through my bank and via the legal firm handling the collection on behalf of Goldman Sachs, and they’re actually telling me a refund is possible. So now, I'm just sitting here playing the waiting game while the process unfolds.

Trust me, I’d love to be the optimist here and tell you, "Don't worry, you'll get your money back."
If they actually approve it, please post an update here so we all know (you never know)... though honestly, I think your odds of getting a refund are lower than your odds of hitting the Powerball.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Aaron Cooper said:I have a similar legal instrument right now to collect from an employer (the employer issued a Statement at the request of the Department of Labor).

The Federal Reserve is refusing to execute the collection against the employer, mostly because they interpret the accounting regulation differently than the Department of Labor does. I'm still sitting here waiting for someone to tell me if the Statement needs to be printed on pink paper or blue paper.🙂

I have a mountain of emails (and direct phone calls at the director and chief levels) regarding forced collections involving the Department of Labor (who wrote the regulation), the Department of the Treasury (specifically the director overseeing the Federal Reserve), and the Department of Justice (where I'm seeking a formal interpretation). Every single one of them understands my point, but nobody offers a solution. When I ask them to just coordinate and fix the discrepancy between themselves, they dodge it by claiming it would be an illegal interference in another department's business???

The Department of Labor refuses to demand a new Statement from the employer because they claim the current "Statement is sufficient for collection."

Do I even need to mention that the employer has connections to the highway department!!!
Yeah, several lawyers have reviewed everything and they say I'd win in court on the first try.

But I just don't get why I, despite having all the paperwork in order, can't collect from this employer through the Federal Reserve, yet anyone else—a worker, a retiree, or just some regular citizen—can get it done without this headache???

The link explains how to settle payments through the Federal Reserve. It’s straightforward information regarding the process.

True... under the new law, you can go straight to the Federal Reserve to garnish an employer's assets. I completely missed that part.

By the way, you can find information on how payroll is calculated online.
The Department of Labor just dropped some new guidelines regarding accounting regulations. It’s essentially a complete overhaul of how they want everything handled. Expect more oversight from the Department of Labor Inspection moving forward.

Envy, I think I know what the issue is. The Federal Reserve only recognizes... Certified pay stub. This is how it looks on the employer's end. Something like this (though it might not be identical).

[Link to payroll list image]

Another example:

[Link to image showing an American invoice list]

So you need to file a separate claim for every single unpaid paycheck. Signed by the company seal and signature. That makes it an enforceable instrument.
The catch is that hardly any employer actually follows the law on this.
I assume all you have is a piece of paper certified by the company stating they owe you a specific amount in unpaid wages, issued at the request of the Department of Labor Inspection. That isn't an enforceable instrument. I assume it could serve as valid evidence if you ever need to sue an employer for unpaid wages—though you'd probably be working with a lawyer by that point.
I’ve been there myself—employer refusing to hand over pay stubs (thank God that's over). A lawyer friend told me the best move was to get a signed statement on paper stating: "Wages have not been paid."
I don't know how much weight that carries since the Federal Reserve can easily verify if those salaries were actually paid out.

A quick coffee chat with a lawyer for a few bucks could have prevented all of this.

If I didn't hit the mark, then I honestly have no clue what the issue is. You should probably just call a lawyer.

And one last thing... an employer can actually face prison time if they fail to pay wages. You guys probably didn't bother looking into that option, did you?
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
steelheron47 said:Sorry if I'm being a bit much, but...

You aren't being annoying; you just don't have the data. Tax debt is a completely different beast than a late utility bill from the local water department.

Basically, tax debt from January 2006 doesn't expire in January 2011 (assuming a 5-year statute of limitations—just using that as an example). The clock actually starts running from January 2007, which is where people mess up...
I'm not positive, but I think sending out notices can extend the statute of limitations, making it harder to argue based on the original due date...
Check exactly what’s expired and how much, then follow what Opak wrote... just play dumb. When the collection notice hits—file an objection in 3 or 4 copies. In the objection, cite the statute of limitations (and make sure to request a waiver for court costs—you'll need an IRS certificate proving you aren't a registered taxpayer). Also, definitely object to the attorney and notary fees—if most of the claims are already past the statute of limitations, those collection costs should be lower.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Aaron Cooper said:I’m trying to wrap my head around how the Federal Reserve actually goes after a retiree who missed a cable bill... I mean, doesn't the Federal Reserve wait for proof before they start seizing assets—like, doesn't CBS have to actually prove the payment was never made? How does a creditor like CBS even demonstrate that...

So, I’ve got this garnishment order right here. It’s a full-blown payroll deduction from a major employer, complete with the creditor info, the debtor's details (SSN, bank account, all that), the amount, the due date, the transaction numbers, an authorized signature, and the corporate seal... basically everything you'd need if the Department of Labor were looking over their shoulder...

But apparently, the Federal Reserve is just making things up as they go along. Their whole excuse is, "How are we supposed to know if the debtor already settled this?" Which, honestly, could they not just check our bank statements or something?...

So now, I’m stuck acting as the creditor with all this official paperwork in hand, yet somehow I'm the one who has to prove the employer didn't pay the debt.🙂
I know I could just take this to court, but man, I was really hoping for a quicker way through the bureaucracy...

According to CBS—not a chance. You’re the one who has to prove you actually paid them.
Business statements are treated as valid legal documents for enforcement, so you have to prove whatever they claim is wrong. That’s why some "idiots" like me keep every single paid receipt from the last ten years, even though the statute of limitations is only one year. You never know. I print out all my statements regularly because the bank only keeps them available in online banking for a year—after that, you have to pay just to see them.

And you think that’s how you actually get paid? YOU HAVE TO. Go ahead and trigger the garnishment using that document, unless you decide to settle with the debtor privately. You don't have to sue the employer anymore; a pay stub marked "unpaid" is enough now. The debtor will probably fight it, dragging things into municipal court to dispute the unpaid wages or challenge the validity of your claim. If the employer can't prove they actually paid you—kind of like what happened with CBS—then you'll see. I'll let you answer your own last comment on that one. 😉The judge rules in your favor, and only once that decision becomes final can they actually start enforcing the garnishment. Just watch out for the statute of limitations on wage claims.

And one last thing. The Federal Reserve isn't an investigator, a judge, or a jury. They're just the collector. Executing. Not even once she determines that a specific action has been taken. Done. The garnishment is being lifted. Pay the creditor directly. It doesn't notify. In that case, the creditor has to pull the garnishment from the Federal Reserve.
It’s pretty obvious that the Federal Reserve is just an executioner. They don't care about anything else; they just swing the axe whenever the law tells them to.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Nicholas Cruz7 said:So, here's the deal: Verizon blocked my account back on August 19th, but since I wasn't even in the States at the time, I only just managed to get into my protected account yesterday. Can anyone walk me through the fastest way to get those two specific amounts back—specifically the September and October STIPENDS—which shouldn't have been subject to any seizure in the first place, yet they just grabbed them anyway. The bank is telling me this whole process could drag on for a month or more, assuming they even bother to return it at all. Who exactly am I supposed to reach out to at Verizon? And how do I go about getting back the extra fees taken from my stipend by FIFA (those collection costs)? Any advice would be appreciated.

Abandon all hope... as they say...

(1) Under Section 204, Subsection 1 of this Law, if the debtor receives income or benefits under Section 172 or amounts exempt from garnishment under Section 173, the debtor is required to notify the Agency.

The law is written to put the debtor at a disadvantage... let’s be clear... you're supposed to open a protected account *before* the garnishment happens, notify the Federal Reserve about which income is exempt, and only then can you actually access it... if the funds accidentally land in a frozen account... well, kiss it goodbye.

To wrap this up... only brute force brings justice... hopefully it's clear where you stand in this situation....
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Eric Fowler19 said:I think she filed her objection with a notary public. "..she wrote an objection, dammit.." The objection was actually drafted and sent back on August 23, 2013, yet she didn't show up here until October 8th.
It goes back to what I said earlier: she's completely in the dark. Even if she had gone to a lawyer, the result would be the same.
If the objection is solid, the court will issue an order to stay the enforcement—expect that to take about six months—plus there'll be a cost of $33 that she’ll have to cover. I'm pretty sure she didn't pull her tax clearance or file a motion to waive court costs. So, my only advice to her is to pay those $33 RIGHT NOW (it looks like she can only file that motion when she submits the objection). Otherwise, she'll get a notice for additional $33 fees, pushing the total cost up to $67. Oh, I forgot to mention: the law prohibiting certain fee charges doesn't apply to court proceedings.


if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013
never got a single summons from the court, and two years have passed since then.
It's confirmed, damn it, that the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up somewhere between the office and the courthouse.

if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013
never got a single summons from the court, and two years have passed since then.
It's confirmed, damn it, that the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up somewhere between the office and the courthouse.

if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013
never got a single summons from the court, and two years have passed since then.
It's confirmed, damn it, that the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up somewhere between the office and the courthouse.

if you're talking about my situation, that was August 22, 2011 not 2013.
Never got a call from the court, and two years have passed.
Confirmed, damn it, the objection was sent to the court, but someone obviously screwed up between the office and the courthouse.

My bad... I wasn't looking at the year... usually when someone posts about a garnishment here, it's either way too late or they just got hit with it... 😉
In that case, you should have received a ruling from the court regarding the stay of execution or a dismissal of the objection due to procedural errors (like insufficient copies, etc.). Did you get that ruling? Generally, those arrive within a year at the latest.

Let's not overcomplicate this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/questions/credits/...out-of-force/
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
John Clark6 said:Daniel Martinez9 I’ve been digging through some fascinating stuff lately—I just spent quite a while reviewing about ten different rulings from appellate courts and various state district courts regarding debt repayment appeals. It turns out there is a really interesting legal nuance here! Even if you explicitly state that your payment is intended for the principal balance, it seems that under certain interpretations, the creditor still maintains the right to apply funds toward interest first before touching the principal. It looks like that specific section of the Civil Code regarding the "order of application as determined by the debtor" isn't actually mandatory in the way most people assume. From what I can gather, that provision is more of a guideline designed to protect the creditor and essentially nudge debtors toward more disciplined payment habits. It seems the courts point back to a different section of the Civil Code that dictates the actual priority of how payments are applied. It’s definitely one of those tricky legal grey areas where what you *think* you're doing might not be what the law enforces!

The debtor still needs to file an objection just to prevent the garnishment from becoming final. Who’s going to guarantee that a creditor won't push the collection through even after everything has been settled? And let's be honest, people are completely clueless about how this works, often paying extra clauses they don't even owe. A notary has no idea if the debt is cleared because they get their fees from the creditor—only the parties involved actually know the truth. Filing an objection is just a way for the debtor to protect themselves from potential fraud or messy situations. On top of that, FINA doesn't verify whether payments were actually made; they just see a mandate and execute it. Only the creditor can pull the plug. Just look at all those posts saying, "I paid the bill, but the garnishment hit my account anyway." 😉

John Clark6 said:Now, my dear lady, you can finally rest easy! In my opinion, Hanžeković really should have forwarded that appeal over to JB—whether they actually did or not, well, neither of us truly knows, I suppose. But look, there are specific legal remedies designed for exactly these kinds of situations, and I don't mean just filing an objection, an appeal, or more back-and-forth paperwork—even if you are absolutely in the right. There are much stronger options out there. So, I wasn't just being dramatic when I suggested finding a lawyer right away!

I think she sent her grievance directly to the notary. "..she wrote a complaint to JB.." The formal complaint was filed back on August 23, 2013, yet she didn't show up here until October 8.
I’m chalking that up to what I said earlier: pure ignorance. Even if she had gone to a lawyer, it wouldn't have changed a thing.
If the legal objection is drafted properly, the court should grant a stay on the enforcement. You can expect a ruling within about six months. Plus, they'll include the costs of... $33 Who’s going to foot the bill? I’m pretty sure she didn't bother getting her tax exemption certificate before filing that request to waive court costs. All I can tell her is: pay up. $33 RIGHT NOW. It looks like you can only file an appeal when submitting a formal objection; otherwise, you're just going to get hit with those extra fees. $33 Costs are going up too. $67Right, I forgot to mention that the law prohibiting the charging of late notice fees doesn't apply to court proceedings.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
Eric Fowler19 said:I just checked. The public notary issued the debt collection order on July 15th, while CNN provided the ledger extract back on June 28th.
The payment was made on July 5th, 2011.

No, no, no, no, no. Once again... no, no, no, no, no, no, no. (Check John Clark6's post)

Look at the date on the front page showing when it was filed. That’s the official date and year. People mess up the year all the time. The front page needs to have a stamp with the date next to or above the "FILED" notation.
YOU MUST FILE AN OBJECTION
If it was filed before July 5th, 2011, you’re still stuck with some attorney and public notary fees (though not all of them). I wrote up a guide for filing objections here.
If it was filed after that, just write one sentence stating the debt was already paid, contest the entire collection order, and attach a copy of the payment receipt.
The only thing I'm unsure about is if it was filed exactly on July 5th, 2011. Maybe someone more experienced who dealt with that can chime in.
Wage garnishments and collections in Law ·
John Clark6 said:Look, Grba, I’ll be honest—I’m not entirely sure I follow your logic here—or maybe I just missed your point—but I really don't see the utility in filing an objection if the debt is legitimate and hasn't hit the statute of limitations. It feels like you're just objecting for the sake of objecting, which, in my opinion, is pretty much pointless. All you're doing is potentially dragging things out and forcing yourself to pay for yet another legal consultation, which just inflates your total costs. Honestly, the only smart move is to settle the full amount now to avoid those extra notary fees used to certify the finality of the debt—though, from what I've seen lately, some lawyers actually include those fees right in their initial collection proposals anyway. If you file an objection without any real grounds, you aren't stopping anything; you're just delaying the inevitable, and that enforcement order will eventually become legally binding regardless. As for what you mentioned regarding the principal amount... hmm... I don't think that works quite that way, and here is why: enforcement costs kick in the very moment the collection proposal is drafted—basically, as soon as the notary receives the request. You can only dodge those specific costs if you pay off the debt *before* the enforcement order is actually issued. Even if you were to pay off just the principal, the attorney still has a perfectly valid legal right to claim their procedural fees—which is totally standard practice. Plus, you might be overlooking a big one: by paying even a portion of the debt, you are essentially acknowledging that the debt exists and validating the enforcement action itself. It’s almost a contradiction in terms—you're complaining about the debt while simultaneously paying it! At the end of the day, both the court-mandated and the attorney's fees are completely justified and legitimate.

Hey, Alex—would you mind walking me through that one more time? I might be totally off base here, but I'd love a bit more clarity!

Let's go over this one more time. This time, we'll break it down into three parts. In all three scenarios, we're talking about people who actually WANT to pay their debt.
Why file an objection.
Scenario one. (The debtor pays the debt in full)
This thread is 162 pages long. Go ahead and count how many posts say, "I paid the debt, but it still hit my account at the Federal Reserve and froze everything." That happened because they didn't file an objection; the enforcement became final and hit the Federal Reserve. All those people whining are responsible for their own mess because they ended up losing money. First off, there's no guarantee all creditors will return the money they seized (about 90% will, but there's always that one stubborn type where your only option is court, and we all know how that goes). Furthermore, the creditor is NOT going to pay you back the fees the Federal Reserve took for their own processing.
Is it really too much to ask for people who have already paid to take thirty minutes to pull their tax exemption status to avoid court fees and send that as an objection to the public notary? I think it is. Actually, I don't think—I consider it a basic responsibility for any citizen who receives an enforcement notice.

Scenario two (The debtor wants to pay in installments)
It's the exact same situation as scenario one. Except, 90% of creditors will gladly agree to a payment plan, provided it follows their specific timeline. So, an objection is mandatory.

Scenario three (The debtor can't keep up with the creditor's demands, or the debt is massive and would take years to pay off, or the creditor refuses a payment plan)
Basically, every month after filing the objection, the debtor sends a specific amount to the creditor's account labeled "principal." Yes, you're technically acknowledging the debt, because debts have to be settled. It's common sense. But by doing this, you're settling the enforcement under much better terms—terms similar to most European countries, where you prioritize paying off the principal first.
What happens when the hearing comes up? You simply present all the documents you sent to the creditor requesting a payment plan, along with, say, a letter from a bank stating you don't qualify for credit, and finally, a visual chart of your repayment plan (for a debt of $23 with a 2-year term and current interest rates of...$6.75) If that debt collection agency were to actually become final, we're looking at a 30-year stretch, even though the debtor's repayment plan says it should only take 10. Also, don't forget the part of the law that makes us prevent predatory lending. The judge's first move will be cutting the principal because they have no choice. In our legal system, if there's a tie, the court leans toward what’s more favorable for the defendant. It's just how it works. Look at the case involving the guy from Chicago and the woman from Mexico—the judge handed down a "light" sentence simply because the law forced them to favor the accused.

And one last thing... it's true that judges usually toss out extra costs for the debtor if they see the person is actually willing to settle their debts.

Enough said? I bet the pearl-clutchers will completely ignore my first two points since they're obvious, and instead go straight for the third. Why? Because nobody—and I mean absolutely nobody—can predict exactly how a judge will rule in that specific scenario. 😉

Bottom line: pay your debts, but MANDATORY file objections against everything you can. Just keep in mind you need to pull your tax clearance to prove you aren't a tax delinquent; if you aren't, you're exempt from most of those court fees.