It seems to indicate so on the dol.gov website in the CCPA. Here is the specific URL to it http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/garnish.htm It even says on this page, "If a state wage garnishment law differs from Title III, the employer must observe the law resulting in the smaller garnishment"
So logically, if I have a judgment against me for federal educational debt (student loans - but NOT TAXES - taxes being the only debt that the CCPA lists as excluded in its scope of coverage),... if I have a judgment against me here in FL, and FL garnishment law allows me to claim head of household exemption to be 100% exempt from wage garnishment, then does this mean the judgment creditor (US Govt) is bound to uphold its own Federal CCPA law, which says it MUST observe state law's protection?
First question, is the "judgment" a state court judgment or federal court judgment?
Here is the thing...you can ask this question all you want. Laws are not self-executing. And especially "exemptions laws" are not self executing; the debtor must CLAIM the exemption. Even if you are 100% correct in your reasoning and position, you still need to go to court and prove it. So, if this garnishment order originated from a court, you have to go to that court, file a claim of exemption, and give the court both the legal and factual basis to support your position. In short, you need to argue your position, in writing. Ultimately, the judge will decide.
Frankly, stop wasting your time here and get to work. A dozen attorneys here could say the answer to your question is yes, but it won't make a bit difference. The only person's opinion that matters is the judge.
3 lawyers agree