The federal government can garnish up to 15% of your paycheck without first obtaining a civil court judgment. This can strike at the heart of your finances.
Book a Consultation CallThis percentage may seem modest, but it can accumulate quickly, especially for those living paycheck to paycheck. The administrative wage garnishment process allows the government to take a portion of your paycheck without first obtaining a civil court judgment. As such, the SBA or other creditor agencies must give you notice thirty days in advance and an opportunity to request a hearing or negotiate a payment plan. Courts have interpreted the six-year statute of limitations for actions for monetary damages as applicable only to lawsuits filed in court. It does not apply to non-judicial collection methods, such as administrative wage garnishment.
Administrative wage garnishment can hamper your finances. Unless you agree in writing to a higher amount, the government can garnish your disposable pay up to 15%. It's crucial to understand that “disposable pay” is calculated after mandatory deductions, so knowing your deductions can help you estimate the true impact of garnishment. Federal law also limits total garnishments to 25% of disposable pay. Therefore, if you have other garnishments, the total of all garnishments, including the federal government, cannot exceed 25%.
"Disposable pay" means your pay after the deduction of health insurance premiums and any amount required by law to be withheld. Such amounts include Social Security taxes, withholding taxes, Medicare, etc. Therefore, if you had a previous garnishment of 15% in place and then the government obtained an administrative wage garnishment order against you, the administrative wage garnishment would be limited to an additional 10% of your income. Taking 15% of your paycheck can really affect your ability to pay your bills, raise your kids, and save for retirement. Many individuals do not realize that even small garnishments can drastically impact your budgeting and future financial goals, making it imperative to take action if you receive notice of garnishment.
As soon as you receive the notice of intended administrative wage garnishment, you must request a hearing. Alternatively, you can contact the Treasury and arrange for a payment plan. If you request a hearing timely, an administrative wage garnishment cannot start until you've had a chance to present your case. Be proactive; it’s essential to keep records of all communications and ensure prompt submission of your hearing request to avoid complications. If you fail to submit a hearing request promptly, the administrative wage garnishment will start.
Going forward, you may present evidence that you don't owe the debt, the debt is not enforceable, or the amount of the debt is incorrect. Also, you may present evidence that an administrative wage garnishment would cause financial hardship if implemented. Lastly, if you were involuntarily terminated from your previous job and have been currently employed for less than 12 months, a wage garnishment cannot proceed. It’s advised to gather any documentation that supports your claims, as this information will be crucial for your defense.
You will need to file a brief with facts, evidence, and legal support for your position, as well as financials if you claim financial hardship. To that end, our assertive attorneys have represented clients all over the country in administrative wage garnishment hearings. Protect Law Group has the experience obtaining the necessary evidence and presenting your defenses. With the right legal representation, you can navigate this challenging situation more effectively and work toward a favorable resolution.
Contact our office today and one of our attorneys will discuss your matter with you at no cost.
Millions of Dollars in SBA Debts Resolved via Offer in Compromise and Negotiated Repayment Agreements without our Clients filing for Bankruptcy or Facing Home Foreclosure
Millions of Dollars in Treasury Debts Defended Against via AWG Hearings, Treasury Offset Program Resolution, Cross-servicing Disputes, Private Collection Agency Representation, Compromise Offers and Negotiated Repayment Agreements
Our Attorneys are Authorized by the Agency Practice Act to Represent Federal Debtors Nationwide before the SBA, The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Fiscal Service.
Client personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan for $100,000 from the lender. The SBA loan went into early default in 2006 less than 12 months from disbursement. The SBA paid the 7(a) guaranty monies to the lender and subsequently acquired the deficiency balance of about $96,000, including the right to collect against the guarantor. However, the SBA sent the Official 60-Day Due Process Notice to the Client's defunct business address instead of his personal residence, which he never received. As a result, the debt was transferred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service where substantial collection fees were assessed, including accrued interest per the promissory note. Treasury eventually referred the debt to a Private Collection Agency (PCA) - Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. Pioneer sent a demand letter claiming a debt balance of almost $310,000 - a shocking 223% increase from the original loan amount assigned to the SBA. Client's social security disability benefits were seized through the Treasury Offset Program (TOP). Client hired the Firm to represent him as the debt continued to snowball despite seizure of his social security benefits and federal tax refunds as the involuntary payments were first applied to Treasury's collection fees, then to accrued interest with minimal allocation to the SBA principal balance.
We initially submitted a Cross-Servicing Dispute (CSD) challenging the referral of the debt to Treasury based on the defective notice sent to the defunct business address. Despite overwhelming evidence proving a violation of the Client's Due Process rights, the SBA still rejected the CSD. As a result, an Appeals Petition was filed with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals (OHA) Court challenging the SBA decision and its certification the debt was legally enforceable in the amount claimed. After several months of litigation before the SBA OHA Court, our Firm Attorney successfully negotiated an Offer in Compromise (OIC) Term Workout with the SBA Supervising Trial Attorney for $82,000 spread over a term of 74 months at a significantly reduced interest rate saving the Client an estimated $241,000 in Treasury collection fees, accrued interest (contract interest rate and Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR)), and the PCA contingency fee.
Clients personally guaranteed an SBA 504 loan balance of $337,000. The Third Party Lender had obtained a Judgment against the clients. We represented clients before the SBA and negotiated an SBA OIC that was accepted for $30,000.
Client’s small business obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for $750,000. She and her husband signed personal guarantees exposing all of their non-exempt income and assets. With just 18 months left on the maturity date and payment on the remaining balance, the Great Recession of 2008 hit, which ultimately caused the business to fail and default on the loan terms. The 7(a) lender accelerated and sent a demand for full payment of the remaining loan balance. The SBA lender’s note allowed for a default interest rate of about 7% per year. In response to the lender's aggressive collection action, Client's husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in an attempt to protect against their personal assets. However, his bankruptcy discharge did not relieve the Client's personal guarantee liability for the SBA debt. The SBA lender opted to pursue the SBA 7(a) Guaranty and subsequently assigned the loan and the right to enforce collection against the Client to the SBA. The Client then received the SBA Official 60-Day Notice. After conducting a Case Evaluation with her, she then hired the Firm to respond and negotiate on her behalf with just 34 days left before the impending referral to Treasury. The Client wanted to dispute the SBA’s alleged debt balance as stated in the 60-Day Notice by claiming the 7(a) lender failed to liquidate business collateral in a commercially reasonable manner - which if done properly - proceeds would have paid back the entire debt balance. However, due to time constraints, waivers contained in the SBA loan instruments, including the fact the Client was not able to inspect the SBA's records for investigation purposes before the remaining deadline, Client agreed to submit a Structured Workout for the alleged balance in response to the Official 60-Day Notice as she was not eligible for an Offer in Compromise (OIC) because of equity in non-exempt income and assets. After back and forth negotiations, the SBA Loan Specialist approved the Workout proposal, reducing the Client's purported liability by nearly $142,142.27 in accrued interest, and statutory collection fees. Without the Firm's intervention and subsequent approval of the Workout proposal, the Client's debt amount (with accrued interest, Treasury's statutory collection fee and Treasury's interest based on the Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR) would have been nearly $291,030.
.jpg)
