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 with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

March 20, 2019

New Jersey Prohibits Enforcement of Non-Disclosure Provisions in Settlement Agreements, Other Contracts

March 20, 2019

A sweeping amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) bars enforcement of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements and employment contracts, and prohibits the waiver of substantive and procedural rights under the statute. The amendment applies to all contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified, or... Read More

February 28, 2019

Portland, Oregon, Bars Discrimination Against Atheists, Agnostics

February 28, 2019

An amendment to the civil rights code of Portland, Oregon, extends protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations to atheists, agnostics, and other “non-believers.” Religious facilities are expressly exempt. The Portland City Code, chapter 23.01, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of... Read More

February 27, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Is Not Subject to Equitable Tolling

February 27, 2019

In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019... Read More

Related Practices