ILNews

Rejection of garnishment request upheld

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A collection company seeking to garnish a woman’s wages in order to satisfy an alleged $1,800 debt was unable to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that the trial court had to issue the garnishment order.

In American Acceptance Co., LLC., as Assignee of Washington Mutual Finance v. Melissa Willis, 42A04-1208-CC-466, American Acceptance Co. argued based on Indiana Code 24-4.5-5-105, Melissa Willis had the income that was subject to garnishment and the trial court was required to order the garnishment.

American Acceptance filed a complaint against Willis in May 2009 that she owed $1,855.50 for goods and/or services. In June 2012, it sought to garnish her wages from Western Southern Financial Group. Willis testified that she was paid solely on commissions, she was supporting her husband and two children, and that she had to post a $25,000 cash bond for her husband’s release from jail. He was charged with theft and possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Willis suggested American Acceptance be paid out of the bond money when her husband’s criminal charges were settled.

The trial court denied American Acceptance’s motion, finding she didn’t have “substantial income to allow a wage garnishment order.”

In affirming the trial court, Judge Michael Barnes pointed to I.C. 34-55-8-7(a), which says a court may order garnishment of a debtor’s income to satisfy a judgment.

“The trial court here was not required to order garnishment of Willis’s income. Instead, it was within the trial court’s discretion to do so,” he wrote. “The trial court chose to order that the Clerk of the Knox Circuit/Superior Court ‘is not to release the bond in Cause Number 42D01-1010-FB-139, State vs. Todd Willis, until a hearing can be held in this cause of action for purposes of settlement.’”

Given Willis’ circumstances, this was not an abuse of discretion, the judges held.

 

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. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT