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 material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 22, 2019

Illinois Expands State Human Rights Act to Include Employers with One or More Employees

August 22, 2019

An amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) expands the definition of “employer” from employers with at least 15 employees to those with one or more employees. The legislation, House Bill 252, was signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 21, 2019, and enacted as Illinois Public Act 101-0430. The new law will become... Read More

August 13, 2019

New York Expands Harassment Laws, Protections of Religious Attire, Clothing, or Facial Hair

August 13, 2019

New York state has enacted sweeping new workplace harassment protections for employees, including lowering the standard for when harassment is actionable. It also has adopted new law prohibiting employment discrimination based on religious attire, clothing, or facial hair. Workplace Sexual Harassment On August 12, 2019, Governor... Read More

August 12, 2019

Illinois Enacts Workplace Harassment Law, Creating New and Expanded Obligations for Employers

August 12, 2019

Employers in Illinois will have new obligations related to employment contracts, training, and agency oversight under a wide-ranging bill signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 9, 2019, that is intended to combat workplace harassment and provide greater protections for employees. Senate Bill 75 unanimously passed both houses of... Read More

Related Practices