ILNews

COA upholds $12 garnishment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Miami Circuit Court did not err in its interpretation of a statute involving garnishment of wages when ruling a company was correctly withholding only $12.17 from an employee, held the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday.

Mari Miller filed a petition in September 2010 against Waterford Place, the employer of Fabian Calisto, arguing it was in indirect contempt of a court-ordered garnishment for deducting just over $12 from Calisto’s paycheck.

A jury found Calisto liable to Miller in 2001 for $900,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. Under Indiana Code 24-4.5-5-105, his employer was to deduct 25 percent of his wages. At the same time, he was also having $348 withheld to satisfy a child support order. Miller didn’t believe Calisto's then-employer, Care Centers Inc., was properly garnishing his wages and the trial court found the employer in indirect contempt, holding the amount of his wages subject to garnishment couldn’t be reduced by the child support withholding that was also taken from his wages.

Calisto later began working for Waterford Place, which garnished the wages in the similar way as the previous employer, finding that Miller was only entitled to the $12 under statute because of the child support withholding. The trial court found Waterford to be correct in its calculations and denied Miller’s request for attorney fees.

The Court of Appeals agreed in Mari Miller v. Glenda Owens, et al., No. 52A05-1012-CP-742, finding the law-of-the-case doctrine to be inapplicable despite Miller’s arguments. An attempted appeal of the trial court’s previous ruling finding Care Centers in contempt for its garnishments was dismissed as untimely, and the trial court’s ruling was not adopted by an appellate court’s decision.

The judges also rejected Miller’s arguments that the trial court erred by not concluding Waterford’s arguments were precluded by offensive collateral estoppel. She never presented this claim to the trial court, and even if she did, she wouldn’t prevail, wrote Judge Paul Mathias. Waterford wasn’t a defendant who had “previously litigated unsuccessfully in an action with another party” and wasn’t a party at all when the trial court issued its earlier rulings.

The COA looked at Section 105 and found it to be clear and unambiguous.

“If a person is subject to both a child support withholding order and a garnishment order, as is Calisto, then the garnishment order shall be honored only to the extent that the earnings withheld under the child support withholding order do not exceed the amount subject to garnishment under Subsection 105(2). As set forth above, the maximum amount subject to garnishment under Subsection 105(2) in Calisto’s case is twenty-five percent of his weekly disposable earnings, or $360.17,” the judge wrote. “Thus, pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of Subsection 105(8), Miller’s garnishment order can only be honored to the extent that the earnings withheld under the child support order do not exceed $360.17. Calisto’s current child support withholding order is $348. The extent to which $348 does not exceed $360.17 is $12.17. This is the amount that the trial court concluded that Waterford was properly withholding from Calisto’s weekly wages.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT