The bank is taking my entire paycheck...

If things play out the way I said they would, we’re looking at a much better situation than before. Back then, if Chase blocked your account, you were basically screwed because trying to negotiate with those guys is a total nightmare.

darkmaker94 said:If things play out the way I said they would, we’re looking at a much better situation than before. Back then, if Chase blocked your account, you were basically screwed because trying to negotiate with those guys is a total nightmare.

That’s assuming this even works. And what, up until now, was the bank just seizing a person's entire paycheck?

I think this is how it works:
They can't garnish more than one-third of your paycheck—though that usually refers to administrative freezes and similar stuff (even then, garnishments and levies often end up hitting the full amount regardless of that one-third rule). Once the money actually hits the account, though, it’s considered liquid assets and can be seized in its entirety.
From what I gather, FIFA won't pull funds if someone is just using an authorized overdraft—since that isn't technically "property"—but they will take everything in the positive balance, leaving the account frozen until the debt is fully settled.

Section 149 of the Enforcement Act

(1) Wage garnishments—including salary, sick pay, part-time adjustments, or disability benefits—can be taken up to one-half of the total amount when collecting court-ordered child support, alimony, or damages related to health issues and loss of earning capacity due to death. For any other type of debt, the garnishment is capped at one-third of the paycheck or pension.

Basically, that second category covers things like utility bills, credit card debt, and loans...
That means they aren't allowed to take more than that. Even though banks have been pulling this off pretty consistently until now.

Take Angela Merkel, for example; she also has a "protected" account where her salary gets deposited. 😁

Lawrence Cruz said:I think this is how it works:
They can't garnish more than one-third of your paycheck—though that usually refers to administrative freezes and similar stuff (even then, garnishments and levies often end up hitting the full amount regardless of that one-third rule). Once the money actually hits the account, though, it’s considered liquid assets and can be seized in its entirety.
From what I gather, FIFA won't pull funds if someone is just using an authorized overdraft—since that isn't technically "property"—but they will take everything in the positive balance, leaving the account frozen until the debt is fully settled.

It seems like FIFA doesn't actually check the account balances before they go ahead and hand things over to the collections agency, so they basically just send whatever amount the bank reports is available when they make that specific inquiry about an enforcement action...

So, basically, FIFA is asking if there's $500 available, but then the bank comes back and says there's only $300 on hand, yet FIFA just shrugs and goes, "Fine, whatever, just wire it to XY and freeze the accounts"... it's just such a mess...

darkmaker94 said:Section 149 of the Enforcement Act

(1) Wage garnishments—including salary, sick pay, part-time adjustments, or disability benefits—can be taken up to one-half of the total amount when collecting court-ordered child support, alimony, or damages related to health issues and loss of earning capacity due to death. For any other type of debt, the garnishment is capped at one-third of the paycheck or pension.

Basically, that second category covers things like utility bills, credit card debt, and loans...
That means they aren't allowed to take more than that. Even though banks have been pulling this off pretty consistently until now.

Take Angela Merkel, for example; she also has a "protected" account where her salary gets deposited. 😁

It looks like you're quoting the old version of the Enforcement Act, but just so you know, a newer one has been in effect since January 1st, 2011...

fadedlynx6 said:Does anyone actually know what FIFA is up to lately? I was scrolling through TX yesterday and saw they’ve frozen 162,000 citizen accounts... does anyone have any idea what's actually going on here?

I mean, what can a person even do when FIFA freezes their account? They aren't supposed to be able to seize more than a third... right?😕

I'm reading online that people's accounts are totally locked up and they can't even access their basic paychecks. Is that even legal?

All of those accounts had already been flagged by the banks previously, since the banks were the ones handling the foreclosures on them themselves...

Ever since early 2011, FIFA has officially taken over that whole process by law, so the banks just handed over everything they had on file...

darkmaker94 said:You need to hit up the IRS to let them know you’ve got regular deposits hitting a frozen account—specifically the 2/3 portion that's legally protected from garnishment. Once they process that, they should notify your bank, and then your bank can set up a "protected" account where your untouchable paychecks will land.
Now, here’s how it actually plays out in the real world... 🤷

Looks like this is the form you need.

That's the gist of it,
except for the fact that those crazy extremists in Washington thought they could pull this whole thing off in just three months...
and since this latest regulation was only released on New Year's Eve—meant to take effect the very next day—neither the banks nor FIFA were ready to go overnight, and most citizens haven't got a clue what's happening either...

What happens if someone is already dealing with an administrative garnishment where a third of their paycheck is being diverted directly at their company's payroll office? In that scenario, the rest of the money hits their bank account, and neither the banks nor FIFA have any clue that the initial third was already taken. Is it actually possible to slap another garnishment on that remaining balance?

Scott Johnson45 said:It seems like FIFA doesn't actually check the account balances before they go ahead and hand things over to the collections agency, so they basically just send whatever amount the bank reports is available when they make that specific inquiry about an enforcement action...

So, basically, FIFA is asking if there's $500 available, but then the bank comes back and says there's only $300 on hand, yet FIFA just shrugs and goes, "Fine, whatever, just wire it to XY and freeze the accounts"... it's just such a mess...

That was my initial thought too, but reality works differently. I know someone locally who is technically in a deficit—meaning she has enough to cover part of the garnishment—but she still can't access anything.

Scott Johnson45 said:All of those accounts had already been flagged by the banks previously, since the banks were the ones handling the foreclosures on them themselves...

Ever since early 2011, FIFA has officially taken over that whole process by law, so the banks just handed over everything they had on file...

I wouldn't say the banks just dumped it; rather, the creditors have backed the banks into a corner. The banks are legally obligated to follow orders. It's a mess right now because even though the banks froze the accounts through December 31st, the IRS took over on January 1st—everything is being transferred mid-stream and it's incredibly disorganized.

Scott Johnson45 said:That's the gist of it,
except for the fact that those crazy extremists in Washington thought they could pull this whole thing off in just three months...
and since this latest regulation was only released on New Year's Eve—meant to take effect the very next day—neither the banks nor FIFA were ready to go overnight, and most citizens haven't got a clue what's happening either...

It's classic American legislation—regulations passed today that go into effect tomorrow, leaving everyone scrambling without a plan. And who ends up paying for the confusion? The average citizen. 👎

darkmaker94 said:What happens if someone is already dealing with an administrative garnishment where a third of their paycheck is being diverted directly at their company's payroll office? In that scenario, the rest of the money hits their bank account, and neither the banks nor FIFA have any clue that the initial third was already taken. Is it actually possible to slap another garnishment on that remaining balance?

Well, you basically head over to FIFA, fill out the necessary paperwork, and eventually, that protected portion of the income gets deposited into a protected account...

you should really take a look at that specific regulation from the Federal Register...

Lawrence Cruz said:That was my initial thought too, but reality works differently. I know someone locally who is technically in a deficit—meaning she has enough to cover part of the garnishment—but she still can't access anything.

I wouldn't say the banks just dumped it; rather, the creditors have backed the banks into a corner. The banks are legally obligated to follow orders. It's a mess right now because even though the banks froze the accounts through December 31st, the IRS took over on January 1st—everything is being transferred mid-stream and it's incredibly disorganized.

It's classic American legislation—regulations passed today that go into effect tomorrow, leaving everyone scrambling without a plan. And who ends up paying for the confusion? The average citizen. 👎

she can't use her authorized overdraft? Because it isn't technically cash, it's a claim, or at least that was how the legal teams over at the big banks interpreted it

Under the old banking regulations, an authorized overdraft was explicitly counted as part of your available balance

...dumped, meaning they handed over every single debt they held along with all the account statuses, and it's all still sitting there with FIFA...

An authorized overdraft isn't income—it’s just available credit, plain and simple. It’s certainly not an asset, nor is it actual revenue. So, to me, it seems perfectly logical that I can't just bank on that money being there when I need it. Besides, it’s actually pretty smart business for a bank—the moment they catch wind that someone is facing a massive collection action or a lawsuit, they just shut down the line of credit immediately.

Hmm...
I can't quite wrap my head around what’s going to happen starting January 1st if FIFA gets their hands involved in this mess...

I'm sitting here wondering if there's any way I can actually play this situation to my advantage...?

For instance...
Here's the breakdown: my paycheck is roughly $1333
. I've got a court order for child support dating back to $307, and after that, everything else goes straight toward my mortgage via automatic withdrawal $1267. I've got an overdraft limit and some Chase and Wells Fargo cards with deferred payments.
Honestly, I'm just shuffling money from one empty pocket to another at this point.
Let me give you an example:
What if I shut down the overdraft (which I'm not even using right now) and instead of the automatic payment, I request a freeze on the loan itself? What would actually happen then? My employer wouldn't be able to pay me anything—literally ZERO dollars, right????? There has to be something left over just to survive, surely? I realize that if I did that, I'd lose my credit cards and the overdraft, and I'd just end up stacking debt on the loan because I wouldn't be paying the full installment. Look, I get it—child support comes first, and that's fine. But would I have even a single cent left for basic living expenses?

And God, the misery just keeps piling up because
it's almost been three months since I've had to start covering these overdue child support payments.
Basically, the court handed down the ruling, and I pleaded with my ex for some breathing room
so I could sell my condo. Even though she knows exactly how bad things are, she barely agreed to a six-month grace period, and that deadline is looming while I still haven't found a buyer.
What happens if those back payments hit my paycheck all at once!!??
The judgment says they can take half of my income, which means about $667, but I still have a $3,800 mortgage to cover.
Alright. I've got maybe three months left. But what the hell am I supposed to do after that??

I wouldn't dream of suggesting you stop making your loan payments. Seriously, try everything you can to stay on top of those installments. If you fall behind, you’re just asking for trouble—you'll get hit with late notices, skyrocketing interest rates, and eventually, heavy collection fees. Worst case scenario? After enough missed payments, the bank calls the whole thing in, demanding the full balance immediately. Then you're really in a bind... 😢
That's why I'm telling you: hang in there and pay what you can. You just need to manage to sell the condo at some point. 🙂

Look, just sell the apartment already—slash 10% off the asking price right now. Are you really going to sit there and wait until every single deadline passes you by? From what I recall, you mentioned your alimony payments kick back in this March once that moratorium expires—so how exactly do you plan on surviving on $4,000 minus $900 minus $3,800 = $233 in new monthly debt? You haven't even touched the $0.33 needed for basic living expenses or the utilities for that place 😲
.
How much did you actually take out for the loan again? Around $90,000? -> Just set that as your selling price and call it a day...

Scott Johnson45 said:she can't use her authorized overdraft? Because it isn't technically cash, it's a claim, or at least that was how the legal teams over at the big banks interpreted it

Under the old banking regulations, an authorized overdraft was explicitly counted as part of your available balance

...dumped, meaning they handed over every single debt they held along with all the account statuses, and it's all still sitting there with FIFA...

For now, if there's no positive balance, it’s a no. Whether that's a misinterpretation of the rules—I couldn't say.
I'm with Andrew Booth29 on this one—an overdraft isn't a customer's asset; it's just a line of credit the bank happens to offer. Real assets are what you actually have in the black.
Up until now, banks would process transactions up to the limit of the overdraft, but clearly—at least for the moment—that isn't happening anymore.

Gerald Chavez7 said:Look, just sell the apartment already—slash 10% off the asking price right now. Are you really going to sit there and wait until every single deadline passes you by? From what I recall, you mentioned your alimony payments kick back in this March once that moratorium expires—so how exactly do you plan on surviving on $4,000 minus $900 minus $3,800 = $233 in new monthly debt? You haven't even touched the $0.33 needed for basic living expenses or the utilities for that place 😲
.
How much did you actually take out for the loan again? Around $90,000? -> Just set that as your selling price and call it a day...

MAN 😢
BY MARCH, you're looking at an additional $333 burden—those unpaid child support arrears.

I honestly think I need to drop my price to the absolute floor immediately too.

Price drop alert:

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/st...-listing-1432547

Lawrence Wright7 said:MAN 😢
BY MARCH, you're looking at an additional $333 burden—those unpaid child support arrears.

I honestly think I need to drop my price to the absolute floor immediately too.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to this: the longer you drag your feet, the harder you get screwed.$15333/year