Wage Garnishment

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Robert Jackson et al v. Blitt & Gaines, P.C.

Case No.: 15-1573; 15-1820

Officials: KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges, and BRUCE, District Judge. *

Focus: Wage Garnishment

Wage garnishment actions are not legal actions on a debt against the consumer

“Plaintiffs argue that we should embrace the reasoning of Adkins v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., No. 2:11‐CV‐ 00619, 2012 WL 604249 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2012), an un‐ published district court decision from outside this circuit. There, the district court analyzed the Ohio wage‐ garnishment regime and determined that “[o]nly the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor have any beneficial interest at stake in a garnishment action” and that the employer is only a “nominal ‘defendant.’” Id. at *6. Plaintiffs claim that because Ohio and Illinois’s wage‐garnishment regimes share some similarities—both require notice to the judgment debtor and allow the judgment debtor an opportunity to respond—that we should reach the same conclusion as the Adkins court.”

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.