Wage garnishments and collections

Harold Anderson3 said:I could really use some help here.
We dealt with a garnishment from $2167 (it was regarding unpaid PBS subscription fees followed by an enforcement process), which we fully settled back on June 4, 2013. Just two days ago, we requested a full transaction history for our checking account covering the last two years. According to those statements, the total amount listed under 'forced collection via order' comes to $3300, which means they've taken $1133 more than what the actual garnishment required.
Does anyone have any idea where this discrepancy might be coming from? I'm wondering if it's just accumulated interest or something else entirely. Thanks in advance for any insight you can share.

To start with, the Federal Reserve charges interest based on their specific fee schedule (which you can request at any of their branches). Then there's the annual interest on the principal, which I remember being around 14.5% (not sure if they've changed it lately). Furthermore, under an enforcement order, you pay off the interest and legal fees (attorneys and court costs) first, and only then do you touch the principal. Plus, interest starts accruing from the day the order was filed, not from when the decision was handed down or when payment was made.
Looking at it this way, you actually got off easy. Sounds unbelievable, doesn't it? 😉
The problem is you received the order and did—nothing; you just let them fleece you. 😉
Now, all you can do is sit there and cry. At least tissues are cheap so you can wipe your tears.

Daniel Martinez9 said:To start with, the Federal Reserve charges interest based on their specific fee schedule (which you can request at any of their branches). Then there's the annual interest on the principal, which I remember being around 14.5% (not sure if they've changed it lately). Furthermore, under an enforcement order, you pay off the interest and legal fees (attorneys and court costs) first, and only then do you touch the principal. Plus, interest starts accruing from the day the order was filed, not from when the decision was handed down or when payment was made.
Looking at it this way, you actually got off easy. Sounds unbelievable, doesn't it? 😉
The problem is you received the order and did—nothing; you just let them fleece you. 😉
Now, all you can do is sit there and cry. At least tissues are cheap so you can wipe your tears.

I mean, honestly, what were we supposed to do? There are 300,000 citizens facing enforcement actions right now; do we all need to go on national TV just to get something moving? Besides, PBS is largely responsible for how this whole mess was cooked up. And of course, my own mother ignored the warnings too, and she ended up paying ten times the original amount—and I mean LITERALLY.😉

Harold Anderson3 said:I mean, honestly, what were we supposed to do? There are 300,000 citizens facing enforcement actions right now; do we all need to go on national TV just to get something moving? Besides, PBS is largely responsible for how this whole mess was cooked up. And of course, my own mother ignored the warnings too, and she ended up paying ten times the original amount—and I mean LITERALLY.😉

People don't need to be on TV or whatever... they just need to fight back. For starters, there's the Consumer Union. They’re funded by the government and pay themselves huge salaries, so the least they can do is help the public:

http://www.consumercouncil.org

Second, you need to be honest about the garnishment. You had an enforcement of $2167. Since you aren't being fully transparent, I can only guess. My guess is lawyer and notary fees are around $1000. So the total garnishment is roughly $1167. One has to wonder how long you went without paying your PBS subscription, since it was about $27 a month, which totals $320 annually. This raises the question of whether part of the debt is statute-barred, because PBS subscription claims expire after one year.
By the way, the statute of limitations is calculated based on when the garnishment was RECEIVED by the notary/local court. That is a major distinction from the date the garnishment ORDER was issued.
Unfortunately, for you, the matter is settled regardless of how unfair you think it is because of:
Contract Law:
Article 221.
If a debtor fulfills a statute-barred obligation, they have no right to demand a refund, even if they didn't know the obligation had expired.

Sadly, they cleaned you out for $3.25. Don't think I'm enjoying this; I actually hate hearing stuff like this. It's because people either don't know their rights or they're just indifferent (laziness, parasitism, cowardice)—not just regarding garnishments, but when it comes to standing up for themselves in general. Anyway, I'll post a guide on how to handle garnishments specifically for the forum users in my next post, once I'm done flying after I hit "send."

As for you—forget what happened and move on.

Daniel Martinez9 said:People don't need to be on TV or whatever... they just need to fight back. For starters, there's the Consumer Union. They’re funded by the government and pay themselves huge salaries, so the least they can do is help the public:

http://www.consumercouncil.org

Second, you need to be honest about the garnishment. You had an enforcement of $2167. Since you aren't being fully transparent, I can only guess. My guess is lawyer and notary fees are around $1000. So the total garnishment is roughly $1167. One has to wonder how long you went without paying your PBS subscription, since it was about $27 a month, which totals $320 annually. This raises the question of whether part of the debt is statute-barred, because PBS subscription claims expire after one year.
By the way, the statute of limitations is calculated based on when the garnishment was RECEIVED by the notary/local court. That is a major distinction from the date the garnishment ORDER was issued.
Unfortunately, for you, the matter is settled regardless of how unfair you think it is because of:
Contract Law:
Article 221.
If a debtor fulfills a statute-barred obligation, they have no right to demand a refund, even if they didn't know the obligation had expired.

Sadly, they cleaned you out for $3.25. Don't think I'm enjoying this; I actually hate hearing stuff like this. It's because people either don't know their rights or they're just indifferent (laziness, parasitism, cowardice)—not just regarding garnishments, but when it comes to standing up for themselves in general. Anyway, I'll post a guide on how to handle garnishments specifically for the forum users in my next post, once I'm done flying after I hit "send."

As for you—forget what happened and move on.

We missed about 15 subscription payments. Since PBS initiates a new levy every three unpaid bills, we ended up with five different ones. Altogether, it totaled $2167. They told us how long we would be under levy, but we didn't take any action, even though we knew more than $2167 would eventually be taken. See, my mom had a credit card too, and I mistakenly thought everything would just be zeroed out—that the credit card debt would be bundled into the levy once the account was frozen. But that wasn't how it worked; even more was taken because the Federal Reserve also collects its own fees and interest on the levy. So, the debt was roughly 15 * 80 = $400, but in the end, almost 10 $0.00 was paid out.
Honestly, I'm just glad it's finally over. We just need to pay off the overdraft (by the end of this year), and then the entire pension will be available again after two years of having our accounts frozen.

If someone owes me money and they're currently under an enforcement order, will I see those funds hit my account as soon as their pension is paid, or is there usually a delay? The enforcement is being handled through the Federal Reserve and became legally binding back on October 25, 2012.

dustyfalcon8 said:If someone owes me money and they're currently under an enforcement order, will I see those funds hit my account as soon as their pension is paid, or is there usually a delay? The enforcement is being handled through the Federal Reserve and became legally binding back on October 25, 2012.

The real question here is whether this person already has other outstanding enforcement orders against them. If they do—well, you probably won't see a dime of your money until everyone else ahead of you in line gets paid first.🤷

There aren't any other garnishments. I actually received one payment about a month after my account was frozen, since that shows up on the escrow account first. My Social Security hit the account a few days ago, so I guess I'm just wondering when I might see funds back in my main account again...

Sent from my iPhone

In the Bankruptcy plan summary for a major coastal resort company that filed for bankruptcy on June 15, 2010, near the Northern Adriatic—involving 800 employee-creditors—the hearing regarding the approval of the plan was scheduled for August 30, 2013, at the Rijeka Commercial Court. It states:

Method for satisfying the claims of employee-creditors

on page 17 of the Summary:
- Employees who are creditors in the first priority class will have their established claims satisfied by paying 50% of the total amount in cash over a period of no more than 60 months following the plan's effective date, and based on the company's financial capacity, the remaining 50% of the established claims will be settled by converting those claims into equity shares.

and part of the Summary on page 19:
- Claims held by employees within the first priority class shall be settled in cash in the amount of $9986450 and specifically in installments based on available funds, starting immediately after the plan's approval becomes legally binding, and lasting no longer than 60 months.

A similar situation occurred during the dismissal of the Viktor Lenac Bankruptcy plan back in 2007, where the High Commercial Court in Chicago overturned the previous plan via ruling Pž-2594/07-5 due to an appeal from creditors. One of the main reasons was a similarly vague definition regarding how employee-creditors would be paid:

...Pursuant to Article 253, Section 1 of the Bankruptcy Code, once a bankruptcy plan is officially confirmed, creditors with established claims may initiate enforcement proceedings against the debtor. Therefore, the wording of the contested ruling must qualify as an enforceable instrument under Article 26, Section 1 of the Enforcement Act; this means it must clearly identify the creditor, the debtor, the subject, the type, the scope, and the timeframe for fulfilling the obligation. Looking at the contested ruling—specifically Point IV, which dictates the settlement for current and former employees through cash payments of 15,$160627 following the liquidation of the bankruptcy estate and the satisfaction of all administrative costs and other estate obligations—it is not clearly evident who the specific creditor is or how the debtor's obligation was determined.

Furthermore, under Point VI of the ruling, it was stipulated that these creditors would be paid in cash through installments based on available funds, starting from the moment the plan is approved, for a maximum of 24 months. This kind of language regarding this category of creditors does not constitute a valid enforceable instrument for collection because it fails to specify which individual employees are owed what amounts, or the exact timeline for those payments . Additionally, based on the phrasing in Point IX, which states the ruling applies to all participants—including creditors who haven't even filed their claims—it implies that any worker or former worker could potentially seek enforcement, even if they never formally registered their claim or had it verified, provided they fall under the specified category....

I have a question for anyone well-versed in Commercial Law, the Enforcement Act, and Bankruptcy Law: Can such ambiguous definitions within a Bankruptcy plan—specifically in the section detailing how employee-creditors are paid in cash over 60 months, where the trustee oversees the debtor's obligations using phrases like "based on the company's capacity" and "in installments based on available funds"—actually be considered a VALID ENFORCEABLE INSTRUMENT FOR COLLECTION?

dustyfalcon8 said:There aren't any other garnishments. I actually received one payment about a month after my account was frozen, since that shows up on the escrow account first. My Social Security hit the account a few days ago, so I guess I'm just wondering when I might see funds back in my main account again...

Sent from my iPhone

anyone ? :-(

Sent from my iPhone

Does the Federal Reserve have any obligation—before they go ahead and freeze an account—to send over an enforcement notice that actually allows for an appeal?

This is regarding an enforcement based on a final court judgment.

northerncyclist13 said:Does the Federal Reserve have any obligation—before they go ahead and freeze an account—to send over an enforcement notice that actually allows for an appeal?

This is regarding an enforcement based on a final court judgment.

Hell no.

Alright, so here’s my situation, and honestly, I still can't believe this actually happened. Out of nowhere, I get hit with a traffic ticket from back in 2011—we're talking a 9-month license suspension and $767 in fines. So, naturally, I file an appeal. A District Court judge looks at it and rules in my favor, deciding the fine is completely wiped out and dropping the driving ban down to just one month. Fast forward two months after getting that ruling, and suddenly the IRS starts pulling $767 plus $363—I don't even know what that extra bit is for—straight out of my checking account. No warning, no notice, nothing! They literally snatched money for a fine that was already overturned! And to make matters worse, I’ve been tearing my house apart for three days straight looking for the actual court order to prove they're wrong. I've turned everything upside down and still nothing. What now? Can I just go to the court and demand a copy of the decision? What am I supposed to do with it—take it to the police, the IRS, the court...? I’m honestly speechless at how brazen this is. Is there even a chance I’ll get my money back, and if so, when? 🙂

Look, you need to track down a copy of that court order and send it straight to whoever gave the IRS the green light to force this collection. That $2,300 isn't just some random fine either; there’s definitely extra junk tacked onto it 🤷 Honestly, the IRS is just doing their job here because they received an official order from someone else, and it's not their place to sit around deciding if the claim is valid or controversial or whatever.

As vividraven26 pointed out, you can just head down to the District Court and request a copy. You'll be able to see everything right there in the enforcement division where the whole mess started—since they're the ones pushing things toward wage garnishments or swapping fines for jail time and whatnot.👍

A month ago, a woman was supposed to receive her third severance installment. So far, nothing. She went to the IRS today to ask about the next steps in the process, and the agent there told her she needs to go back to her former employer and demand a formal statement detailing the unpaid third installment. The problem? The employer is refusing to provide any documentation. Does anyone know what the actual procedure is here? Who should we be contacting next? Last year, under the previous regulations, she had to go through the District Court just to get the second installment.

Here’s the situation: someone owes me money and a garnishment has been issued. I already received one payment. After waiting for the next installment, I went to the Treasury to ask why nothing has arrived if the debtor has already received their pension. They told me they don't actually see the account balance; they just wait for the bank to signal whether the pension has hit. This involves a USPS-affiliated bank where the debtor receives their funds, and they’re claiming that until he opens a protected account, the money won't go to me, nor can he touch it—it just sits there. I don't understand this specific quirk of this bank. If they're waiting for him to open a protected account before I get paid, how did I receive the first payment? In any other bank, if you haven't set up a protected account, the garnishment just pulls everything, but here it seems like the money is sitting in the account while the garnishment isn't being executed... As the injured party, what should I do? I'm worried that waiting indefinitely won't get me anywhere. :|

Gregory Martin7 said:A month ago, a woman was supposed to receive her third severance installment. So far, nothing. She went to the IRS today to ask about the next steps in the process, and the agent there told her she needs to go back to her former employer and demand a formal statement detailing the unpaid third installment. The problem? The employer is refusing to provide any documentation. Does anyone know what the actual procedure is here? Who should we be contacting next? Last year, under the previous regulations, she had to go through the District Court just to get the second installment.

the relevant inspection agency

I’ve gotta give credit to consumer protection agencies—they’re actually pretty sharp when it comes to advice, assuming you can actually get a human on the line. Personally, I’ve wasted countless hours playing phone tag trying to reach them while waiting for my judgment to become final—all because I just wanted to know if filing a formal complaint is actually worth it or if it'll just make my life even more complicated.

PersonNotice regarding a preliminary hearing in Columbus

Regarding: payments. The plaintiff is CNN, and the judge noted: the hearing will proceed if I (the defendant) file an answer to the complaint, otherwise they might issue a default judgment or schedule a new date...
I'm starting to think my objection from last year doesn't hold much weight—it seems the statute of limitations doesn't work quite the way I thought it did.

1) Why is this being handled by the Columbus District Court when everyone involved is based in Washington, D.C.?

2) I really don't like the idea of making the trip, and I'm genuinely torn on whether I should even file a response. Is there a difference between just not showing up versus showing up and losing the case?...

Thanks!

Quick question here.
I’m looking at this garnishment from $100 and I see the court costs are $17. Are there any other extra fees popping up—like paying for an asset appraiser or something if the debtor doesn't actually have anything to seize? Or are there any other hidden costs I should watch out for?
Thanks.