Wage garnishments and collections

Here’s the link to that Smart Kuna article regarding statutes of limitations:

Alexander Cruz32 said:Hey, looking for some advice on behalf of a friend.

So, AT&T is threatening her with some kind of seizure based on a final court ruling. She tried to appeal the initial decision because she’s struggling financially, but she sent it via mail and missed the deadline, so the court ruled she has to pay (I think it's just a few hundred bucks in legal fees).
The thing is, she’s an unemployed single mom with a little kid, renting a place, and doesn't own anything worth anything—her only income is social security and child support. I'm pretty sure, by law, they aren't allowed to touch those funds. But here's my question: how can she stop them from freezing her account? I know it's illegal, but AT&T has a massive legal team, and I know these big companies sometimes freeze money they shouldn't. How does she protect herself? Can she do something right now to prevent this illegal seizure? And what happens if they go ahead and block her account even though they aren't supposed to?
I don't think seizing her property is even an option since I know you can't take stuff that's necessary for basic living.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Look, if they have a final court judgment, the seizure isn't illegal.
A creditor has every right to go after the money they are owed.
Seizures are carried out based on credible documentation, and if AT&T has that paperwork, they are perfectly within their rights to start seizing her funds.
AT&T has no clue whether her deposits are a paycheck, child support, or something else entirely.

What she can actually do is head down to her bank and set up a protected account specifically for the funds that are legally exempt. That way, her protected income goes there, and she can actually access it. Anything else—the non-protected stuff—has to go into a regular checking account, and that's what will get hit by the seizure.

John Clark6 said:What matters is when JPMorgan Chase actually received the garnishment proposal—which, by total coincidence, you mentioned they just got on May 14th, right? What a crazy coincidence... hehehe.

PS: I’m just being sarcastic, because honestly, I've suspected for quite a while now that JPMorgan Chase and certain law firms are playing a very cozy little game together 🙂. My conclusion? You might as well forget about filing an objection; it’s probably better to just pay up.

I’m more than convinced about that myself—the request was filed on May 14th, yet JPMorgan Chase didn't issue the decision until May 27th... funny how that works, right? 🤣
They're lightning fast when it comes to decisions like this, yet they leave us hanging for two whole weeks. 😁

ruggedmaker2 said:Look, if they have a final court judgment, the seizure isn't illegal.
A creditor has every right to go after the money they are owed.
Seizures are carried out based on credible documentation, and if AT&T has that paperwork, they are perfectly within their rights to start seizing her funds.
AT&T has no clue whether her deposits are a paycheck, child support, or something else entirely.

What she can actually do is head down to her bank and set up a protected account specifically for the funds that are legally exempt. That way, her protected income goes there, and she can actually access it. Anything else—the non-protected stuff—has to go into a regular checking account, and that's what will get hit by the seizure.

True, but she can't actually open that protected account until the garnishment is already in motion, and since alimony and social assistance are exempt from seizure, there's a gap there.
Plus, the bank can clearly see the transaction codes for her deposits. If they happen to accidentally "seize" those protected payments during the process, the collector is supposed to return them... which, in my experience, never actually happens.
That part right there? That's illegal.

Alright, thanks for the reply. So, if I'm following you, there's basically nothing we can do until they actually trigger the garnishment, and then we hit up FIN for protection? I'm assuming she’s got a legal right to get those funds back once they realize they took money that shouldn't have been touched in the first place, right?

Look, I'm a lawyer myself, but honestly, reading through the Consumer Protection Act, I'm still scratching my head at how you're supposed to shield assets that aren't even legally eligible for seizure. It's not like we're talking about millions here, but it sucks—my girlfriend is already scraping by as it is, and they really shouldn't be allowed to snatch away the bare essentials just to keep someone afloat.

I need some help here: my bank accounts were frozen because of some alleged debt to T-Mobile. I paid off whatever amount they claimed I owed just to get my account unblocked. This whole mess has unfolded over the last two days, during which I haven't received any actual, useful information regarding specific account numbers or the exact amounts they’re claiming I owe. I was told I have to settle this through the IRS; apparently, T-Mobile doesn't even have the data on this supposed debt anymore, and the law firm representing them claims they don't have everything either—they told me to call back tomorrow once they supposedly hear from the IRS or whoever else. All I've been given is some vague nonsense about debts related to certain bills and notices from the first three months of last year. I checked my online banking statements for that timeframe; there are payments recorded for part of that period, and for the rest, there aren't any because I wasn't even their subscriber anymore (once my two-year contract ended, I switched to a new carrier and ported my number).
Given that I never received any official notice of an enforcement action, nor any proof that this debt even exists—let alone that they had the right to just seize my money—what legal steps should I take to get compensated? At the very least, I want the money they pulled from my account back. I’m supposed to get the full details from that law firm tomorrow; if it turns out there was zero basis for this seizure, what’s the move? Sue? How? Who do I sue? And on what grounds?

hollowmason64 said:I’m more than convinced about that myself—the request was filed on May 14th, yet JPMorgan Chase didn't issue the decision until May 27th... funny how that works, right? 🤣
They're lightning fast when it comes to decisions like this, yet they leave us hanging for two whole weeks. 😁

True, but she can't actually open that protected account until the garnishment is already in motion, and since alimony and social assistance are exempt from seizure, there's a gap there.
Plus, the bank can clearly see the transaction codes for her deposits. If they happen to accidentally "seize" those protected payments during the process, the collector is supposed to return them... which, in my experience, never actually happens.
That part right there? That's illegal.

Actually, you can set up a protected account before the garnishment even starts, per the regulations regarding seizures of monetary assets.
All you have to do is take a copy of the notice or the court order—whatever paperwork you got showing that a seizure is imminent—down to the FIN.

If the seizure kicks off before you get that protected account sorted, they're going to drain everything from your current checking account. Then you’re stuck playing a game of bureaucratic hide-and-seek for a few days trying to get it back. They always eventually refund it, but man, it is such a massive headache. You need nerves of steel and way too much free time.
It's much safer to just open the protected account beforehand.

ruggedmaker2 said:Actually, you can set up a protected account before the garnishment even starts, per the regulations regarding seizures of monetary assets.
All you have to do is take a copy of the notice or the court order—whatever paperwork you got showing that a seizure is imminent—down to the FIN.

If the seizure kicks off before you get that protected account sorted, they're going to drain everything from your current checking account. Then you’re stuck playing a game of bureaucratic hide-and-seek for a few days trying to get it back. They always eventually refund it, but man, it is such a massive headache. You need nerves of steel and way too much free time.
It's much safer to just open the protected account beforehand.

Thanks a ton.

Maybe this is off-topic, but I need to ask...
My former boss still owes me a few paychecks, and I want to go after his account through the Treasury Department. What’s the move here? Do I need to buy some specific form or whatever (for unpaid wages... if that's even the right term, and if so, what's the actual name of the form?) then take it to a manager to get it signed, and then head down to the Treasury to file it? Is there anything else? Am I getting this right? And what happens if he refuses to sign it? Do I just call the Labor Department or something?
Can this all be handled in a single day? (I mean the paperwork, not the actual collection, don't get me wrong)

Look, you aren't out there buying some official form or anything. It’s on your employer to cough up those statements proving they haven't paid you what they owe.
Once you've got those papers in hand, you take them straight to FIFA and they'll walk you through the whole process.
Honestly, if I were you, I'd probably just give FIFA a call first to get the full rundown on how this works.

ruggedmaker2 said:Actually, you can set up a protected account before the garnishment even starts, per the regulations regarding seizures of monetary assets.
All you have to do is take a copy of the notice or the court order—whatever paperwork you got showing that a seizure is imminent—down to the FIN.

If the seizure kicks off before you get that protected account sorted, they're going to drain everything from your current checking account. Then you’re stuck playing a game of bureaucratic hide-and-seek for a few days trying to get it back. They always eventually refund it, but man, it is such a massive headache. You need nerves of steel and way too much free time.
It's much safer to just open the protected account beforehand.

Haha—honestly, those ladies over at FIFA usually just brush you off anyway. Most of the time, they’ll tell you to just come back once the actual seizure hits. 😁
It’s one thing to talk about how things should work on paper, but honestly, when you're actually out there doing the work, reality hits a lot differently.

ruggedmaker2 said:Look, you aren't out there buying some official form or anything. It’s on your employer to cough up those statements proving they haven't paid you what they owe.
Once you've got those papers in hand, you take them straight to FIFA and they'll walk you through the whole process.
Honestly, if I were you, I'd probably just give FIFA a call first to get the full rundown on how this works.

This is one of those absolute legal nonsense moves that just drives me up the wall. Honestly, if an employer actually intended to pay you a fair wage, they would have just done it in the first place. It feels like they’re just adding layers of red tape to justify being cheap. 🤣

I have to speak up about this absolute nonsense from FIFA regarding freezing entire accounts! They just lock everything down for 30 days because of some specific amount being withdrawn or moved.
Imagine taking, say, $333 right out of an account that actually has $5000 in it! And they don't say a word while the customer is stuck unable to touch any of those $4667 during that whole month. It’s disgraceful.

My advice: get a protected account set up as soon as possible!!

hollowmason64 said:Haha—honestly, those ladies over at FIFA usually just brush you off anyway. Most of the time, they’ll tell you to just come back once the actual seizure hits. 😁
It’s one thing to talk about how things should work on paper, but honestly, when you're actually out there doing the work, reality hits a lot differently.

This is one of those absolute legal nonsense moves that just drives me up the wall. Honestly, if an employer actually intended to pay you a fair wage, they would have just done it in the first place. It feels like they’re just adding layers of red tape to justify being cheap. 🤣

Look, nobody at the FIN office is going to toss you out just because you show up with paperwork. You just have to actually accept the papers instead of running away from the mailman.
Two guys at my company set up protected accounts without any issues using the seizure notice before the deadline even hit.

As for that other point, it's true. The so-called payroll statement gets handed to the worker even when there's no money, simply because that's what the law demands. And according to the law, that statement counts as a legal seizure document.
The real issue is that some employers refuse to hand them over, and absolutely nobody reports them for it.

The deadline to pay wages is the 15th of the following month, but if there's zero cash in the bank, the deadline to provide that statement is the last day of that same month.

It's easy to just sit there, claim nothing can be done, and then do absolutely nothing about it.

ruggedmaker2 said:Look, nobody at the FIN office is going to toss you out just because you show up with paperwork. You just have to actually accept the papers instead of running away from the mailman.
Two guys at my company set up protected accounts without any issues using the seizure notice before the deadline even hit.

As for that other point, it's true. The so-called payroll statement gets handed to the worker even when there's no money, simply because that's what the law demands. And according to the law, that statement counts as a legal seizure document.
The real issue is that some employers refuse to hand them over, and absolutely nobody reports them for it.

The deadline to pay wages is the 15th of the following month, but if there's zero cash in the bank, the deadline to provide that statement is the last day of that same month.

It's easy to just sit there, claim nothing can be done, and then do absolutely nothing about it.

It feels like things shifted a bit this year—I know for a fact they used to just unhook them back in the day.

It’s honestly the easiest thing in the world to just sit back, claim that nothing can be done, and then use that as an excuse to do absolutely nothing at all.

You've got a point there... It’s just that you always have to keep one eye on the inspectors breathing down your neck, and let's be honest, not everyone is cut from the same cloth. 🤷

hollowmason64 said:It feels like things shifted a bit this year—I know for a fact they used to just unhook them back in the day.

It’s honestly the easiest thing in the world to just sit back, claim that nothing can be done, and then use that as an excuse to do absolutely nothing at all.

You've got a point there... It’s just that you always have to keep one eye on the inspectors breathing down your neck, and let's be honest, not everyone is cut from the same cloth. 🤷

The regulations actually changed back in January. They did it specifically so people don't lose their entire paycheck or maternity benefits all at once, only to end up getting bounced from one government office to another like a pinball. Now, you can actually set up a protected account before they even freeze your funds. You just need to have the right paperwork in hand.
And of course, you have to trek down to FIFA and wait in that endless line. Most people can't be bothered. The second they see a crowd of people staring them down, they just turn around and walk away.

You thinking about section 2?

If the agency finds out—once they get that notice mentioned in section 1—that someone’s account was hit...
The bailiff doesn't have any legal grounds for payment listed in the registry yet. They’re gonna file it there once they get the paperwork.
Heads up—if the collector attaches a screenshot of the payment instructions showing that...
They finally slapped a levy on his bank accounts.

Alright, thanks for the heads-up. At least now I know what my next move is. Much appreciated.

So, I’ve got an enforcement order and my account is currently frozen, though I managed to set up a protected account through the FIN, which is a relief. Now I’m just wondering about the logistics of how my employer handles this—can they just dump my entire paycheck straight into that protected account, or does the law require them to split it up, like sending a third to the blocked account and the rest to the protected one? Any insight would be appreciated.

Look, if a company doesn't play by the rules, they’re going to get slapped with massive penalties the second they get caught.
Even the laws governing debt collection have their own teeth when it comes to criminal penalties.

I was sitting here wondering about the legal nuances of debt collection—specifically, whether creditors can actually go after other family members if the primary "debtor" is essentially broke and has absolutely nothing in their name to seize. Under what specific circumstances would that kind of thing even be possible?

I suppose the only way would be to treat it like a spouse's share of marital assets—but man, what a massive headache that would be...

Now, what happens if we’re looking at a situation where the "debtor" decides to shuffle their assets over to a family member, and then actually manages to prove they did it specifically to dodge an attachment or a garnishment order?