Search form

Georgia’s Garnishment Law on Shaky Ground

By Todd Van Dyke and Justin R. Barnes
  • September 22, 2015

Georgia’s garnishment statute is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Atlanta has held in Strickland v. Alexander, No. 1:12-CV-02735-MHS (N.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2015), putting the future of state garnishment cases in doubt.

U.S. District Judge Marvin H. Shoob found Georgia’s garnishment law to be flawed because it did not require creditors to notify debtors that certain monies or property, such as workers’ compensation benefits and Social Security benefits, are off limits to garnishments. Judge Shoob’s ruling also enjoined Gwinnett County, where the case arose, from issuing any garnishment summons.

Additionally, Fulton County’s Magistrate Court has issued a standing order to stay garnishment cases as of September 14, 2015, until further notice. Other county courts may follow suit. Therefore, until the Georgia Legislature addresses this issue, garnishment activity in Georgia may come to a standstill.

Background

The case came about after Tony Strickland’s bank account, holding his worker’s compensation settlement, was garnished in Gwinnett County by a credit card company. Certain monies or property, however, such as workers’ compensation benefits and Social Security benefits, by law, are off limits to garnishments. Strickland was not given notice or an opportunity to claim an exemption on the money in his account, including his workers’ compensation benefits, before the account was garnished. As a result of the improper garnishment, Strickland, who has cancer, was unable to undergo a needed surgery and seek medical treatment for 115 days.

Implications for Employers

Employers should continue to garnish, but only monies, such as wages, that are subject to garnishment, until instructed otherwise by a court. Employers who elect to stop all garnishment activity run the risk of falling into default.

Importantly, Georgia’s garnishment law provides a safe harbor to garnishees who make a good faith effort to comply with a summons of garnishment. O.C.G.A. § 18-4-92.1(b). As a garnishment action is ultimately a court order on the garnishee to garnish a defendant’s property, the garnishee or employer should continue to do so unless notified to the contrary by the court.

If you have any questions about garnishment law in Georgia or other developments affecting employers, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

Related:

Georgia Garnishment Ruling Modified by Judge, No Longer Applies to Wages

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 30, 2017

Chicago Adopts ‘Hands Off Pants On’ Law to Protect Hotel Workers from Sexual Harassment, Assault

October 30, 2017

To provide hospitality workers greater protections against sexual harassment and assault, the Chicago City Council passed the “Hands Off Pants On” Ordinance on October 11, 2017. The Ordinance requires all hotels in the City to adopt a panic button system and an anti-sexual harassment policy. The Ordinance was passed after months of... Read More

October 24, 2017

California Adds ‘Transgender,’ ‘Gender Nonconforming Individuals’ to Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors

October 24, 2017

Employers subject to California’s mandatory sexual harassment training requirement for supervisors will need to ensure their programs include prevention of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation following an amendment (SB 396) to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). On October 15... Read More

October 5, 2017

Department of Justice Releases Memorandum Restricting Transgender Worker Protection under Title VII

October 5, 2017

On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the Department of Justice’s position that gender identity is protected as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination — taking a position that is contrary to current guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a... Read More

Related Practices