Wage garnishments and collections

They're telling me to head home because some fine from 2001 just showed up $83 from the IRS—and now they're talking about immediate garnishment... wait, how is this even possible? We've lived here for 14 years... is there anything I can actually do about this, or am I stuck paying?

So, when did they actually file the motion for execution?

Jeremy Lee3 said:So, when did they actually file the motion for execution?

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.

Chloe Hernandez81 said:Is it actually possible to initiate a collection action against a company that’s already been dissolved?

Thanks,

If the company has been liquidated, then no—it doesn't exist anymore.

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.

rowdyraven112 said: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.

My attorney was contacted—and she’s advising that I need to head down to the courthouse in person to verify the exact dates. If we’re going to file an appeal or determine when the statute of limitations kicks in, we really need those specific timestamps on record. To make matters worse, my bank account was frozen today. $600 They cleared out some funds I had sitting in my account—it’s just gone now. $543 I deposited some funds into my account—but according to my bank, they only processed $250, plus a $75 fee—and then there was that other amount from my remaining balance, which I think was around... $133 It looks like everything is documented this way by the bank—though my accounts remain frozen for now. The representative at Chase insisted the funds were already withdrawn, yet her records indicate the transaction dates back to 2003—which matches the "/03" notation on the paperwork.

"My account got locked today"... honestly, that sounds like something that was bound to happen sooner or later—it’s almost become a regular thing lately. I mean, did you move recently or were you traveling somewhere? Who knows, really... I think you actually went into more detail about all that earlier in this thread...

John Clark6 said:"My account got locked today"... honestly, that sounds like something that was bound to happen sooner or later—it’s almost become a regular thing lately. I mean, did you move recently or were you traveling somewhere? Who knows, really... I think you actually went into more detail about all that earlier in this thread...

I haven't moved—and goodness knows if I even received anything back in 2004 or 2005 or some other early year—but my account was locked right after they pulled those $83 and $25 specific fees; there’s still a balance left, though I have no idea why... I'm heading down to the local courthouse tomorrow to check the exact dates and then I'll update everyone here—plus, my lawyer mentioned that they were supposed to send me the originals instead of just copies, which might give me grounds for an appeal—at least, that's how I understood her explanation.

If you ask me, I don’t think you need to lose any sleep over the statute of limitations—it seems pretty clear to me that your solution became legally binding a long time ago. The real sticking point, as far as your specific situation goes, is strictly the service of process—meaning, whether the delivery was actually executed according to legal standards. Basically, the big question is why you didn't receive that formal notice for the garnishment order.

Hi there... I had a quick question I wanted to run by you...
So, here's the situation. A colleague of mine has parents who are dealing with some loans... the bank has already placed a garnishment on their accounts, so they're left with just the bare minimum from their paycheck to get by—I'm not entirely sure of the exact percentage the bank is withholding, but I suspect it's somewhere around 30%.
Essentially, the bank initiated the garnishment because they defaulted on their loan payments.
Then, about two or three months ago, they received a notice from the bank stating they need to pay somewhere around $13, or potentially even more, and if they don't settle the amount, the bank intends to move forward with forced collection. As far as I understand, isn't forced collection basically the same thing as a garnishment? Or am I perhaps mistaken about how that works?
My main confusion is this: if the bank has already garnished their accounts, I guess I don't quite see how they can initiate another garnishment on top of that.

They’ve got two-thirds of their paycheck tucked away in a protected account, along with any other legally shielded income they might be pulling in. That money is off-limits. Everything else just hits their standard checking account, and then the IRS or whatever collection agency is breathing down their neck just grabs it as soon as it lands.
Basically, once the first creditor gets paid, the next one in line swoops in immediately.
Look, they all signed on the dotted line when they were taking out those loans. They handed over notarized authorization forms to the banks—basically giving them the green light to seize funds—and that makes it an official legal instrument. They knew exactly what kind of mess they were signing up for.

John Clark6 said:If you ask me, I don’t think you need to lose any sleep over the statute of limitations—it seems pretty clear to me that your solution became legally binding a long time ago. The real sticking point, as far as your specific situation goes, is strictly the service of process—meaning, whether the delivery was actually executed according to legal standards. Basically, the big question is why you didn't receive that formal notice for the garnishment order.

I haven't had any issues for years—let's say three to five—everything is paid up, I take everything the mail carrier brings, and my record is spotless. I’ve been careful precisely to avoid this kind of headache. I recently started a new job, too—just kicked off a new contract—and suddenly they start digging up these old, baseless claims from nowhere. Last year, I settled an old debt from a couple of years back, went down to the local police station to check if I was clear, and they said I was good. I even checked with the bank—nothing on my file—so I slept easy until they unearthed this...

If this was finalized ages ago, why hasn't anyone tried to collect for years? Are they just waiting to feast on interest, or what? And more importantly—if the bank told me the full amount was due, why are they only hitting me for this tiny fraction of $543 instead of the whole thing?

Nicole Long6 said:Hi there... I had a quick question I wanted to run by you...
So, here's the situation. A colleague of mine has parents who are dealing with some loans... the bank has already placed a garnishment on their accounts, so they're left with just the bare minimum from their paycheck to get by—I'm not entirely sure of the exact percentage the bank is withholding, but I suspect it's somewhere around 30%.
Essentially, the bank initiated the garnishment because they defaulted on their loan payments.
Then, about two or three months ago, they received a notice from the bank stating they need to pay somewhere around $13, or potentially even more, and if they don't settle the amount, the bank intends to move forward with forced collection. As far as I understand, isn't forced collection basically the same thing as a garnishment? Or am I perhaps mistaken about how that works?
My main confusion is this: if the bank has already garnished their accounts, I guess I don't quite see how they can initiate another garnishment on top of that.

I'm actually curious about this too... if the bank already has a garnishment on an account where they're receiving a third of the income every month (which is what the law allows), how can they suddenly demand the full debt at once and threaten forced measures? We're talking about the exact same loan—one that should be fully cleared in about 5 months (assuming it takes that long to settle the debt via the garnished account).
The loan is being paid off—albeit slowly—so what else could they possibly want? 🤔

From what I understand—and I could be wrong here, I guess—if you stop making those monthly installment payments, the bank basically tears up the whole agreement. It’s like they trigger a default clause where the entire remaining balance becomes due immediately. Now, the silver lining might be that you aren't stuck paying those specific "lower" interest rates baked into the original contract, but—and this is the big catch—you're suddenly staring down the barrel of the full principal amount all at once, plus "standard" late penalties which can hit around 12%. It gets pretty intense, pretty fast!

Question: A law firm just served our company with an enforcement order. Since this employee already had a protected account set up during the hiring process—meaning the IRS was already handling the garnishment—we’ve just been following protocol by depositing 2/3 of their funds into the protected account and the remaining 1/3 into their regular one. We don't actually know the total debt amount or even who the creditor is... that's really not our business. We sent the enforcement order back to the law firm and advised them to submit everything directly to the IRS instead, but they shot us a reply threatening to sue us as a legal entity if we don't disclose the payment priority order. I can't help but feel it would be much simpler if they just dealt with the IRS directly... or maybe I'm missing something?

Brandon Hill8 said:If the company has been liquidated, then no—it doesn't exist anymore.

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?

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?

Look, a buddy of mine is in a real bind right now—his entire paycheck is basically being swallowed by loan payments. It’s brutal. But, thank God for the laws we have, because they can't actually seize his whole check; legally, they can only garnish up to one-third of it. The rest has to go straight into a protected account. From there, he manages what's left to cover any other debts he's juggling. It's a tightrope walk, honestly.
Look, when those loan payments get snatched straight out of a paycheck based on some official paperwork, that’s basically a wage garnishment. Plain and simple. So, your buddy actually has every right to set up a protected account. He just needs to head down to the IRS, show them the actual documents they're using to garnish his wages, and demand it. Once he proves that's what's happening, they should be opening that protected account for him without any more hassle.

ruggedmaker2 said:Look, a buddy of mine is in a real bind right now—his entire paycheck is basically being swallowed by loan payments. It’s brutal. But, thank God for the laws we have, because they can't actually seize his whole check; legally, they can only garnish up to one-third of it. The rest has to go straight into a protected account. From there, he manages what's left to cover any other debts he's juggling. It's a tightrope walk, honestly.
Look, when those loan payments get snatched straight out of a paycheck based on some official paperwork, that’s basically a wage garnishment. Plain and simple. So, your buddy actually has every right to set up a protected account. He just needs to head down to the IRS, show them the actual documents they're using to garnish his wages, and demand it. Once he proves that's what's happening, they should be opening that protected account for him without any more hassle.

The whole thing feels incredibly sketchy to me. Either he’s just being totally incompetent and they refused to let him open the protected account, or what???!!!
To make matters worse, there’s another massive disaster looming on the horizon. He acted as a guarantor for his wife’s tour boat business. That boat has been sitting high and dry at a dry dock for five years now. As for her? She bolted to France to work as a housekeeper in some villa—off the books, obviously. If only the creditors weren't breathing down his neck.
Now, he’s staring down a $20,000 garnishment because he signed as a guarantor for her.
He’s trying to dodge this hit because some young lawyer told him his current loans aren't "primary" since they supposedly aren't under a direct court order.
The theory is that if the garnishment hits him as a guarantor, it becomes the primary debt, which would theoretically freeze his ability to pay the other loans.

So, it turns out the initial assumption was wrong—he *can* open a protected account. Mind you, he’d still be paying all three of his current loans out of his full salary. Two of them are ending soon, but one has five years left. So, the plan is to open the protected account, clear the two expiring loans, and then he'll be left with just that one remaining loan, which can be paid out of his regular, unprotected account. Once the garnishment as a guarantor kicks in, he'll essentially be in a state of financial limbo for five years. He’s banking on the idea that the bank will eventually give up on chasing him through the courts for the full five-year stretch.

He also thinks that once those two loans expire, he could take out a smaller mortgage. But here's the twist: he’d be a co-signer on a place his daughter buys in her own name, though it's intended for him to live in.
(Just so they don't seize his property.)
Now we hit a second snag: he’ll technically have a mortgage on a house that isn't his, but his daughter's. And that monthly payment will come out of his unprotected account (plus whatever trickles over from the protected one).
Is it possible for a creditor, who can't get their money because he's prioritizing his daughter's mortgage as a co-signer, to sue him using a fraudulent conveyance claim!!???

It’s a very specific mess: the creditor can't collect because the debtor is busy paying off a mortgage for his daughter as a co-signer. And they can't touch the house because it belongs to the daughter and it's already under mortgage.

Naturally, my friend wants to take out this mortgage over as many years as possible (he’s 58, after all), so the bank chasing him as a guarantor would have to wait 15 or 20 years. ( ....provided the people aren't older than 75 when the final payment is due.
And in that time... well, who knows who's still standing!

(By the way, the guy received some cash after his mother passed away, but he's keeping it in his sister's account—he has power of attorney—because he's terrified of that garnishment hitting him as a guarantor.)
So, my advice to him is to close out the current credit, use the leftover cash to get that mortgage, but do it as a co-signer for his daughter on her place, ensuring he has a life estate or the right to live there for as long as he lives.
I just don't know if the bank could still come after him with a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit since he's effectively transferring his wealth to his daughter instead of them—even if he's doing it via installments rather than all at once!!!

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.

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.