May 2, 1979

79-29 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE CHIEF,

COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH, CIVIL

DIVISION

Garnishment—Federal Employees—Consumer

Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 1673)—Social

Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 659)

This responds to your request for our opinion whether the percentage 

limits on wage garnishment for alimony and child support (hereafter 

“ support” ) in § 303(b)(2) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1673(b)(2) (hereafter “ CCPA” ), apply to the total of multiple 

garnishments. The question has been presented by multiple garnishments 

of a Federal employee’s wages for unpaid support under § 459(a) of the 

Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 659(a). For the reasons that follow, it is 

our opinion that the total of multiple garnishments for support may not 

exceed the percentage of disposable income set by § 303(b)(2) of the 

CCPA. When the total proposed wage garnishments exceed this percentage, § 461(c) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 661(c), requires that 

the garnishments be satisfied on a first-come, first-served basis within that 

limit.

Under § 459(a), a Federal employee’s salary is subject to garnishment 

for support “ in like manner and to the same extent as if the United 

States * * * were a private person.” Section 303(b)(2) of the CCPA 

limits garnishment “ to enforce any order for the support of any person” 

to between 50 percent and 65 percent of the individual’s disposable incom e.1 A garnishment order beyond this limitation is unlawful.2 In addition, § 461(c) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 661(c)

1 The exact percentage depends on whether the individual is supporting another spouse or 

dependent and whether the underlying debt is more than 12 weeks old. 15 U.S.C. § 1673 

(b)(2).

2 Consumer Credit Protection Act, § 303(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1673(c). See, Hodgson v. 

Cleveland Municipal Court, 326 F. Supp. 419 (N.D. Ohio 1971).

198
(Supp. 1978), provides that when two or more garnishment orders are received for a Federal employee’s salary, they will be satisfied on a “ firstcome, first-served basis,” with the later garnishments satisfied out of 

“ such moneys as remain available” after satisfying the former.3

Section 459 o f the Social Security Act first made Federal salaries subject 

to garnishment for support in 1975. At that time, the CCPA placed no 

limit on the percentage of income that could be garnisheed for support.4 

As a result, there were several instances of Federal employees garnisheed 

for up to all of their disposable earnings.5 In order to meet this problem, 

Congress amended § 303(b) of the CCPA and added § 461 to the Social 

Security Act. See Pub. L. No. 95-30, 501, 91 Stat. 158. While there is no 

direct discussion of this precise issue in the legislative history, the general 

purpose of the amendment, and the discussion of that purpose, indicates 

Congress’ intent not to allow garnishments that would—in the aggregate—exceed a reasonable percentage of an individual’s income.

These provisions originated in a floor amendment by Senator Nunn. 

After stating that existing law permitted 100 percent garnishment, resulting in possible “ financial ruin” for the individual and his present spouse 

and family, he stated that the amendment would place a percentage limit 

on garnishment for support in order to leave the individual a reasonable 

amount for his current needs.6 There was no other discussion on this 

point. The Conference Report reiterates Senator N unn’s explanation.7 

Thus, the legislative intent underlying § 303(b)(2) was to ensure that a portion of his disposable income would remain available to an individual garnisheed for unpaid support.8 If the percentage limit applied only to single 

garnishments, a wage earner could be deprived of substantially all his 

disposable income by multiple garnishments. In order to comply with 

Congress’ intent to protect a core of disposable income,9 the percentage

1 Although you have requested our advice with respect generally to the application o f the 

percentage limitations in the CCPA, we understand that there is at least one case in point as 

to which immediate action must be taken. The Department o f Commerce has been served 

with two garnishment orders for an employee’s salary, one on behalf o f each of his former 

spouses. If both are complied with 95 percent of the employee’s disposable income will be 

garnisheed. The Department o f Commerce has withheld 95 percent of his disposable income

for the last pay period but has not yet paid it out.

* See 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b) (1970).

’ See S. Rept. 1350, 94th Cong., 2d sess., at 2-3 (1976); 122 C o n g r e s s io n a l R e c o r d 29822 

(1976).

‘ 123 C o n g r e s s io n a l R e c o r d S. 6726, S. 6728 (daily ed., April 29, 1977). See also S.

Rept. 1350, 94th Cong., 2d sess., at 2-3, 9-10.

7 H. Conf. Rept. 263, 95th Cong., 1st sess., at 35 (1977).

* We note that for other debts, no more than 25 percent of disposable income is subject to 

garnishment. Consumer Credit Protection Act, § 303(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1673(a) (1970). The 

higher percentage subject to garnishment for support shows that Congress balanced the relative needs o f the wage earner and support creditor differently from those of the commercial 

creditor. See 122 C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e c o r d 29822 (1976) (Senator Allen).

* It is, of course, a familiar principle of construction that a statute should not be construed 

in a manner that will frustrate its basic purpose. See, e.g., Philbrook v. Glodgett 421 U.S. 

707 (1975); United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267 (1970); United States v. American Trucking

/Ijsn., 310 U.S. 534, 543 (1940).

199
limit of § 303(b)(2) of the CCPA must be applied to the total of multiple 

garnishments.

Accordingly, it is our view that § 303(b)(2) of the CCPA prohibits any 

agency from paying more than the applicable percentage limitation on account of multiple garnishments. Apportionment of the amount that may 

be garnisheed is governed by § 461(c) of the Social Security Act. Under 

that section, the garnishment first served on the employer agency must be 

satisfied insofar as possible. Remaining funds within the percentage limit 

can then be applied to the second garnishment.

L a r r y A . H a m m o n d

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

200