Wage garnishments and collections

feraltinker8 said:Perhaps I shouldn't have settled the full amount upfront. If I hadn't, how would a notary even handle it? They would have no way of knowing my financial standing, nor would they know which specific party to serve with a collection notice. It would likely just end up back in litigation...

I'm not quite sure I follow—what's the issue if there are, say, 20 heirs involved? It's not like they're going to mail out 20 separate bills divided by twenty, right? And if 16 of them don't pay, does that mean the collectors have to file 16 different enforcement actions? I guess the logic of joint and several liability should be pretty clear now! Plus, since you're all considered "extended" family, there's this vague assumption that everything will just sort itself out regarding the payments.

John Clark6 said:I'm not quite sure I follow—what's the issue if there are, say, 20 heirs involved? It's not like they're going to mail out 20 separate bills divided by twenty, right? And if 16 of them don't pay, does that mean the collectors have to file 16 different enforcement actions? I guess the logic of joint and several liability should be pretty clear now! Plus, since you're all considered "extended" family, there's this vague assumption that everything will just sort itself out regarding the payments.

In my own experience involving two heirs, I ended up receiving two separate bills. The first arrived after the hearing, specifying a 1/2 share in the service description. Then, I was blindsided by a second invoice sent alongside the official decision, which also specified a 1/2 share. I simply wasn't fortunate enough to have it handled differently; both invoices were issued in my name, even though they could have easily been directed toward the other heir who actually failed to pay. It seems anything is possible if one possesses a sense of morality or basic fairness. This entire situation is a legal perpetual motion machine; you close one file only to open another. For instance, where in the American legal code does it specify how I am supposed to locate a distant relative in Brazil whom I haven't seen in my entire life? Yet, I am expected to cover their portion and then spend my own time litigating against them just to get reimbursed. Those who benefit from this system are happy to let "distant" relatives chase their own claims. One has to wonder why the records are even required to be kept per individual heir if the outcome is always the same...

So, I’m currently dealing with a garnishment process, and I just received a court order stating the proceedings are being halted because the plaintiff essentially no longer exists. The company in question is actually going through bankruptcy right now, so I'm assuming eventually some owner or heir will step up, and until then, interest keeps piling up. My big question is: should I actually file an appeal against this decision? Or should I try to track down the plaintiff—even though they're technically gone—to get them to restart the case? I'm worried if I don't do anything, the court might just shut the whole thing down permanently if the plaintiff doesn't respond. Honestly, I feel like I'm losing out here; even though the debt isn't massive, the interest is still ticking away. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this... thanks.

Hey everyone.

I’m looking for some perspective or maybe just some advice if there’s actually anything that can be done here.

So, here’s the situation:
Back in 2003, my dad acted as a co-signer for two pieces of farm equipment. The woman who actually owned them paid the initial deposit and stayed current on the loan for about two years. Then, life happened—she couldn't keep up with the payments, so the bank repossessed the machinery, which was supposed to settle the debt.
Fast forward to 2012—if I remember correctly—and my dad’s bank account gets frozen out of nowhere. No warning, nothing... just a total freeze so they could collect the FULL remaining balance of those machines plus legal fees—apparently because the bank couldn't move them at auction.
The machines were sold off somewhere along the line, yet my dad is still stuck paying for them.

Look, I’m no legal expert, but I honestly don't get how this is even possible. How can he still be on the hook for equipment that isn't even his anymore? It makes zero sense to me.

Even the woman involved didn't receive any notices until my dad mentioned his account had been blocked.
She hired a few lawyers, but apparently, none of them could find a way to fight it.
Right now, a friend of mine who’s in law school is digging through the paperwork to see if there's any loophole we can exploit.
I’m at my wit's end here. If anyone has any advice—or even just an explanation as to why they can keep charging him for this—I’d really appreciate it.

I would be incredibly grateful for any help.

Thanks in advance.

Well, just to get things moving, you should probably have your dad send over the specific resolution they used to freeze the account.

Yeah, without a solution, there’s really no point in talking because everything is laid out right there :/

When submitting my Direct Debit Request through the Federal Reserve, I included the original court judgment as the payment basis—it’s fully finalized and enforceable, complete with all the necessary stamps and signatures.

However, the Federal Reserve returned all my documentation with the following explanation:

"The underlying payment basis cannot be executed. Judgment xxxx lacks the required certificate of enforceability pursuant to Article 10 of the amendment to the law on enforcement of monetary assets NN 112/12."

Where am I supposed to obtain this certificate of enforceability? Isn't the judgment itself supposed to serve as an enforceable instrument?

The judgment bears an official seal stating, "This decision became final on xxxxx," along with the court's stamp and signature. It also features a second seal explicitly stating, "This decision became enforceable on xxxxx," accompanied by the court's stamp and signature...

feraltinker8 said:When submitting my Direct Debit Request through the Federal Reserve, I included the original court judgment as the payment basis—it’s fully finalized and enforceable, complete with all the necessary stamps and signatures.

However, the Federal Reserve returned all my documentation with the following explanation:

"The underlying payment basis cannot be executed. Judgment xxxx lacks the required certificate of enforceability pursuant to Article 10 of the amendment to the law on enforcement of monetary assets NN 112/12."

Where am I supposed to obtain this certificate of enforceability? Isn't the judgment itself supposed to serve as an enforceable instrument?

The judgment bears an official seal stating, "This decision became final on xxxxx," along with the court's stamp and signature. It also features a second seal explicitly stating, "This decision became enforceable on xxxxx," accompanied by the court's stamp and signature...

NN 112/12??? The enforcement act has been updated twice since then. Why are you using a judgment based on that old law instead of the current one??

Article 10 of that old law states that decisions issued by a court during enforcement or security proceedings take the form of a formal order or conclusion.

You just have a judgment. :/
It makes zero sense why they're citing that old law. How long ago was this judgment issued or when did the debt start?

When a debtor fails to follow what's written in a judgment, you have to go through a formal enforcement process in court. I'm not sure which stage you're at, but you need a formal enforcement order, not just a judgment.

The judgment itself serves as an enforcement instrument—though, I suspect, if the ruling was handed down prior to that amendment to the law on enforcement of monetary assets, it might not actually qualify as a valid enforcement instrument anymore.

John Clark6 said:The judgment itself serves as an enforcement instrument—though, I suspect, if the ruling was handed down prior to that amendment to the law on enforcement of monetary assets, it might not actually qualify as a valid enforcement instrument anymore.

Look, even with a court ruling, you still have to file the enforcement order first if they don't pay up. -.- And then everything goes straight through the Federal Reserve, blah blah blah.

coppermoose42 said:Look, even with a court ruling, you still have to file the enforcement order first if they don't pay up. -.- And then everything goes straight through the Federal Reserve, blah blah blah.

Actually, that isn't quite how it works under the new law—you can actually go straight for enforcement immediately without needing a notary to mediate or submit a formal proposal, provided you're working from an enforcement instrument... and that’s really the crux of it! Since a certified document has now become an official enforcement instrument—like a standard payroll slip or receipt—it changes the whole dynamic.

coppermoose42 said:NN 112/12??? The enforcement act has been updated twice since then. Why are you using a judgment based on that old law instead of the current one??

Article 10 of that old law states that decisions issued by a court during enforcement or security proceedings take the form of a formal order or conclusion.

You just have a judgment. :/
It makes zero sense why they're citing that old law. How long ago was this judgment issued or when did the debt start?

When a debtor fails to follow what's written in a judgment, you have to go through a formal enforcement process in court. I'm not sure which stage you're at, but you need a formal enforcement order, not just a judgment.

The judgment became final on July 4, 2002, and the enforcement order was issued on July 22, 2002 (according to the dates stamped on the judgment).

On October 13, 2003, my attorney prepared a motion for enforcement based on the enforcement instrument and filed an enforcement order with the local court to garnish one-third of the debtor's wages at xxxx. The court forwarded this to the employer, and the garnishments were processed through 2004, 2005, and 2006...

Well, then everything is perfectly clear—you can't just demand a direct seizure from the Federal Reserve in that specific manner, though you certainly have the option to change the asset being targeted for enforcement.

ps. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Folks... I should probably mention—if it hasn't been at least ten years since the last official action was taken, and if the statute of limitations has actually kicked in, making it impossible to even switch up the enforcement method... then it sounds like you might just be trying to find a loophole after the fact...

John Clark6 said:Well, then everything is perfectly clear—you can't just demand a direct seizure from the Federal Reserve in that specific manner, though you certainly have the option to change the asset being targeted for enforcement.

ps. WAIT A MINUTE!!! Folks... I should probably mention—if it hasn't been at least ten years since the last official action was taken, and if the statute of limitations has actually kicked in, making it impossible to even switch up the enforcement method... then it sounds like you might just be trying to find a loophole after the fact...

So, does this mean I have to go to court and submit a motion for enforcement based on a final judgment?

If I initiated the enforcement back in 2003, I assume the statute of limitations was interrupted, and I never received anything from the court stating that the collection process was suspended—meaning there hasn't been any enforcement against my wages since 2006?

I think you really ought to submit a formal proposal to change how the seizure of funds from the debtor's accounts is handled... though, if I'm being honest, what you've outlined here might be a bit outdated—especially if the debtor starts filing complaints.

I’ll never get why people wait years before they finally decide to stand up for their rights. -.-

coppermoose42 said:I’ll never get why people wait years before they finally decide to stand up for their rights. -.-

The first time I lent money under the promise it would be repaid according to our agreement, I ended up having to file a lawsuit. Once I finally secured a judgment, I had no idea where the debtor was employed. As soon as I tracked down his workplace and initiated an enforcement action, the very moment funds were garnished from his paycheck, he came looking for me to "negotiate." Every time he lost his job, he’d show up again wanting to reach a settlement. I always told him there was no issue with talking, but he never actually fulfilled what we agreed upon. Now, I've decided to restart the enforcement process to ensure the claim doesn't expire due to the statute of limitations...

feraltinker8 said:The first time I lent money under the promise it would be repaid according to our agreement, I ended up having to file a lawsuit. Once I finally secured a judgment, I had no idea where the debtor was employed. As soon as I tracked down his workplace and initiated an enforcement action, the very moment funds were garnished from his paycheck, he came looking for me to "negotiate." Every time he lost his job, he’d show up again wanting to reach a settlement. I always told him there was no issue with talking, but he never actually fulfilled what we agreed upon. Now, I've decided to restart the enforcement process to ensure the claim doesn't expire due to the statute of limitations...

You mentioned the last time money was taken from his paycheck was back in 2006. If you do the math, that was about 9 years ago. I'm sticking to my guns—you waited way too long to act.

P.s. if you had to drag him to court just to get your loan back, he definitely isn't going to just hand it over later on his own. Not happening. :-D

Just because you trusted him in court doesn't mean anything. It’s highly likely that debt has already expired, but I'll check the law when I have some free time.

I could really use some advice here.

We’ve been stuck in a legal battle for several years now with a contractor who did work on our house. We finally won in court, and we're currently trying to use an enforcement order to recover the legal costs incurred during the litigation. The problem is, this guy is completely underwater... he owes the IRS a massive amount of money and doesn't own any real estate that could be seized through a lien.

The only realistic way we might actually see any money is if he hits retirement age, but I'm worried the statute of limitations on the enforcement might run out before he even gets there...

Is there any way to interrupt the statute of limitations on an enforcement order to extend the deadline for collection?

It seems like they can take almost any action to collect a debt—but honestly, it feels like the law only really protects him when it comes to what you're actually allowed to seize. You basically have to constantly monitor his employment status, his real estate, and even his personal property just to stay ahead... because there isn't much else to go after. And that’s assuming the IRS hasn't already jumped in—from what I've been hearing, they apparently get priority over all other creditors under these new rules.