Garnishments have stopped in at least three metro Atlanta counties after a federal judge called Georgia’s law unconstitutional. Two more counties now require that creditors trying to seize money prove debtors have been informed that some sources of income, such as social security benefits or workers’ compensation, are off limits.
Earlier this month, a judge determined that Georgia’s law is flawed, in part because it doesn’t require creditors to tell debtors what money must be left alone. All garnishments were stopped in Gwinnett County because the lawsuit was brought against the clerk of court there.
While the ruling was limited to Gwinnett, reverberations have been felt statewide.
“All the counties other than Gwinnett are in a peculiar situation regarding how to respond to the order,” said Wayne M. Purdom, chief judge of DeKalb County state court. “It’s a fairly unclear situation as to how you respond.”
So far, no one at the state’s attorney general’s office has offered a solution that would allow Gwinnett to start processing garnishments again, or would reassure other counties that their own filings are legal.
A spokesman for Attorney General Sam Olens said the office is “continuing to work with the interested parties in an effort to come to a satisfactory and acceptable resolution of the matter.”
In the meantime, though, some counties have taken the matter into their own hands.
In Fulton and Henry counties, the magistrate courts are still accepting garnishment filings from those who are owed money. But courts in both counties stopped processing them last week. The move essentially put the garnishment process on hold in those counties.
“… In light of the current ruling, we are hesitant to continue doing business as usual,” Cassandra Kirk, chief judge of Fulton County’s magistrate court, said in a statement.
In Cobb and DeKalb counties, people who are trying to collect money must prove they have provided notice to both the person being garnished and the institution the money is coming from — a bank, for example — that some money may be exempt.
In those counties, a quick a hearing is now guaranteed for anyone who contends the money garnished should not have been. In Cobb County, the hearings will happen within 10 days; in DeKalb, four.
While the judge’s ruling wasn’t binding outside of Gwinnett, “we always strive to be prudent,” said Angie Davis, clerk of court in Cobb County. “In the interim, without other direction, we wanted to review our processes, make sure we’re doing the right thing.”
Davis said there was a “good deal of communication” among clerks of court about how to handle the ruling. Several clerks have asked their county attorneys for guidance. Evonne Mull, the clerk of court in southern Dougherty County, is one.
Mull said she will continue to process garnishments as usual. Nothing will be different “until the general assembly makes some changes and it becomes official rule,” she said.
William Randall, chief judge of the civil and magistrate courts in Bibb County, said he thinks it will be a simple change for legislators. Garnishments are also continuing as usual there.
In Gwinnett, though, none has been processed since Sept. 8, when the county was told to stop issuing garnishment summons. More than a third of all garnishment filings in the state take place in Gwinnett.
A garnishment is a way to collect unpaid debts. It can happen when a creditor receives a judgment saying that someone has not paid the money they owe.
To collect the money, the creditor can file a garnishment lawsuit. A summons is issued informing the debtor of the garnishment and an employer or financial institution sends the money the debtor owes to the county where the garnishment was filed. At the same time, the debtor can opposed the garnishment. After about a month, if there is no opposition or the creditor wins in a hearing, the county sends the money to the creditor.
Richard Alexander, Gwinnett’s clerk of court, said he is still taking garnishment filings, but isn’t doing anything with them.
While existing garnishment orders still need to be followed, Alexander said he can’t distribute the money that’s sent in. He’s simply sending the money back to the financial institution or employer it came from.
“I just need to know what’s constitutional, so I can move forward,” Alexander said. “It’s impacted a lot of people.”
One of those people is Kathy Bell, a Buford resident who was finally getting $571.29 every two weeks after her ex-husband’s paycheck was garnished when he failed to pay more than $10,000 he owed in alimony. While the ruling was intended to help protect vulnerable people whose exempted money — such as social security, workers’ compensation or unemployment benefits — was taken when it shouldn’t have been, it also ensnared people like Bell. Bell depends on the money from her ex-husband’s garnished wages.
“It’s income for me and my kids, and I have a household to take care of,” she said. “It destroys your budget, it really does.”
Lori King, Gwinnett’s chief deputy clerk, said 17 people are unable to get child support or alimony garnishments in the county because Gwinnett is forbidden from paying out garnished funds.
King said that all who are owed money are not currently able to collect it, regardless of their need.
Purdom, the DeKalb judge, said clerks statewide have varying opinions on what they should do.
“They’re supposed to process garnishments, but if they process them the way they have been, it’s unconstitutional,” he said.
About the Author
