"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
OK boys and girls, here's today's question..

What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise
snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't the
real question, but I gotta start somewhere..)

Any one?
Any one?

OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must
admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a few
years back. Now for the real question..

What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives 42
it's teeth.

Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even in
the USC-book! (ha!)

I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the
answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you
already know?

42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages,
unemployment compensation, and workers compensation.

45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the
procedures to be followed.

15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the
Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds
the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the first
of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which is
unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to 42,
666... Title 5 CFR, section 581.

The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what
monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly
extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104
and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of law
ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to garnishment
and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment.

So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross
income", guess what? No, they can't.

Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an employee
of the Federal government, or in the military.

Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html

5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
AND/OR ALIMONY

I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the
federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders
received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand
where the states would have any reason to use the federal government's
internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581 basically
outlines how federal civil service employees will be subjected to state
court garnishments.

Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the
states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of
the employee.

For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is,
before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court
order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR
581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines &
forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before- the
garnishment can happen.

The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH (housing
allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581 says that
these are things that must be removed and are to be disregarded from the
service member's pay. What the court is left to work with is Base Pay
(minus deductions) and not a whole lot else.

What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or
net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders.
Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to
establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are
used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on
adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state
income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each parent's
income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline is
established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax
positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS.

Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent
exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions.
Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no
dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the mother
gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration when setting
CS guidelines it is bogus.


Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can only
take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support or up
to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to support.

In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a
change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was a
civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit
more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same
situation.

I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants.

Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set. CS
orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits. If
withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the withholding
order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he pays more than
the withholding order voluntarily.

Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just
about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is
that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on this
rollercoaster ride from hell.

And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do
about it.

I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS
order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance
premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with
the court's order.

My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was
limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments (the
ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of 50% (the
amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because the wage
withholding made my payments go down.

So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the court
ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order that caused
an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in contempt because I
didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld and what the court
order said.

My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose CS
order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order states the
amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit withholding
levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes an arrearage.