|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject United States|
UK - Garnishment is Attachment of Earnings.
In the UK, this is known as Attachment of earnings. The term Garnishment is not used.
- Actually, no. The garnishee order _is_ known to the UK legal system, but it can't be used in the same way that it's used in the States, because a salary (in the UK) isn't a _debt_ owed by the employer to the employee (unless it's not paid on time). The UK Attachment of Earnings order has the same _effect_, but it's a different legal entity. I would Oppose the proposed merger. (Incidentally, following the Woolf reforms, garnishee orders are now referred to in the UK legal system as "Third-party debt orders", but they're still not Attachment of Earnings orders). Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Civil Law Systems
Some civil law systems use similar arrangements, particularly for the enforcement of judgments in commercial claims, as well as in interlocutory proceedings. Although such procedures can be literally translated as "third party seizures", the term garnishment, garnishee and judgment debtor allow for more legible and comprehensible translations. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Globalization of article
This article seems to focus on the United States, but, probably there are other countries where garnishment happens. Hence, I added the Globalize template. --Slartibartfast 06:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I was redirected to this page from my search, "wage assignment," but that doesn't tell me definitively whether or not they're exactly the same thing. Does anyone know if they are? -Dan 02:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC) can they take more then the amount ordered more over time i do the more they take out weekly–
2 garnishment at the same time
I need to know if two debt collectors can garnish my wages at the same time...in the state of the colorado.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Most states follow the first to serve rule; see information in expanded garnishment article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halgai (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The references 'How to Stop Wage Garnishment' http://www.centsableaccounting.com/resources/articles/stopgarnishments.asp and 'Avoid Wage Garnishment' http://bankruptcy-law.freeadvice.com/collections/wage-garnishments.htm have been removed and I think they should be reinstated.
The sentences "Wage garnishments continue until the entire debt is paid or arrangements are made to pay off the debt." (3rd sentence in the Wage garnishment paragraph) and " Employers receive a notice telling them to withhold a certain amount of their employee's wages for payment and cannot refuse to garnish wages." (last sentence in the paragraph after the bullet points) are both referenced from 'How to Stop Wage Garnishment'.
The sentence "Wage garnishment can negatively affect credit, reputation, and the ability to receive a loan or open a bank account." (3rd paragraph in Wage garnishment section) is referenced from 'Avoid Wage Garnishment'.
These sentences add valuable information (they are still there) but their references are not. It looks like the references were just added but they were not. The information was added first; then their corresponding references were added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephra8 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
-- I put the references 'How to Stop Wage Garnishment' and 'Avoid Wage Garnishment' back because they referenced the sentences above. They were replaced by other links when in fact, the sentences above are from 'How to Stop Wage Garnishment' and 'Avoid Wage Garnishment.' I simply put the correct references back in place.Ephra8 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Ephra8
- You have been trying to spam links to this firm for months. Free advice does not qualify as a reliable source. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I honestly haven't been. I found the information from those two sources. Since Free Advice doesn't qualify as a reliable source I left the third link intact but reverted the first two links because information was referenced from there. If they don't qualify as reliable, feel free to remove.Ephra8 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Ephra8
I added some clarifications. this At least in the United States, garnishment of wages, etc., in connection with collection of U.S. federal taxes does not require a court order or other judgment. It's an administrative power held by the Internal Revenue Service by statute. Citations added. Famspear (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Garnishment rules in Canada
Employee or Independent Contractor / Sub-Contractor
I am looking for information on when an Employer - Employee relationship exists for wage garnishment law. Do wage garnishment orders addressed to the "Employer" apply to Contractors who hire Sub-Contractors by the job? How does that vary between states with federal law in the U.S., and other nations? Joseph.scone (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, this talk page is not generally the place to ask or answer questions like this, except to the extent that we're trying to edit the article.
- Having said that, I'll give a brief answer. In generally, it doesn't matter whether it's an employee or an independent contractor.
- Generally, if there is no employer-employee relationship, then there is no "wage" to garnish. But there could be "compensation" or other amounts due to an independent contractor. "Wage" is just a subset of "compensation." The existence of an employment relationship is generally not a requirement under certain laws, such as the U.S. Federal tax law on administrative levy.
- In the U.S. Federal tax law example, Company #1 could be required to turn over, to the Internal Revenue Service, the compensation otherwise payable to Company #2, where Company #2 (or it could be an individual, etc.) is an independent contractor, a sub-contractor. In any case, the notice of levy (the garnishment order, if you want to call it that) addressed to Company #1 would have to state specifically whose compensation is being levied, anyway. In this situation, it really doesn't matter whether the amount owed by Company #1 to Company #2 is wage, or other compensation, or anything else. As long as it's an amount owed by Company #1 to Company #2, it can be the subject of an IRS levy.
- Further, for U.S. Federal tax law purposes, Company #1 is absolved of liability to Company #2 (and of liability to anyone else, for that matter) when Company #1 honors the IRS notice of levy. Indeed, Company #1 can be held personally liable to the government "in his [or its] own person and estate" for failing or refusing to comply with the IRS levy notice. See generally Internal Revenue Code section 6332, subsections (a), (d) and (e).