1

No. 121,109

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STORMONT-VAIL HEALTHCARE, INC.,

Appellee,

v.

HAROLD E. SIEVERS,

Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.

K.S.A. 61-3505 controls nonwage garnishments.

2.

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court has 

unlimited review.

3.

When a statute is plain and unambiguous, this court need not speculate about the 

legislative intent behind that clear language and will refrain from reading something into 

the statute that is not readily found in its words.

4.

The judgment debtor has the burden to show some or all of the subject property is 

exempt from garnishment.
2

5.

Once wages are deposited into a bank account, they lose their identity as 

"earnings" as defined under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1).

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; TIM KECK, judge pro tem. Opinion filed April 10, 2020. 

Affirmed.

Paul Shipp, of Kansas Legal Services, of Manhattan, and Lowell C. Paul, of the same firm, of 

Topeka, for appellant.

Stephanie B. Poyer, of Butler & Associates, P.A., of Topeka, for appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, P.J., MALONE and STANDRIDGE, JJ.

SCHROEDER, J.: After Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc. (SVH) obtained a consent 

judgment against Harold E. Sievers, SVH requested orders of garnishment to collect the 

judgment. Sievers objected to the garnishment order that attached to his property held by 

Capitol Federal Savings Bank (CFS), arguing the funds in his bank account were earnings 

exempt from attachment under K.S.A. 61-3505. The district court overruled Sievers' 

objection after an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the record, we find the district 

court correctly determined the funds in Sievers' bank account were not exempt from 

attachment under K.S.A. 61-3505. We affirm.

FACTS

SVH obtained a consent judgment against Sievers for unpaid medical expenses in 

the amount of $3,008.09 plus $599.94 in interest. At the hearing, Sievers agreed he owed 

the debt. He declined to set up a payment plan with SVH and asked SVH to "garnish to 

the legal amount."
3

After obtaining the judgment, SVH filed two requests for orders of garnishment: 

one to attach to Sievers' earnings held by his employer, the State of Kansas, and one to 

attach Sievers' other property, if any, held by CFS. The nonwage garnishment order 

attached $707.01 from Sievers' bank account at CFS.

Sievers timely objected to the garnishment order directed to CFS, arguing the 

funds in his bank account were exempt from attachment through a nonwage garnishment 

because the funds met the definition of "earnings" under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-

2310(a)(1). Relying on our decision in Dillon Companies v. Davis, 39 Kan. App. 2d 444, 

447, 181 P.3d 570, rev. denied 286 Kan. 1177 (2008), the district court overruled Sievers' 

objection to the garnishment order, finding: "[O]nce Mr. Sievers'[] paycheck was 

deposited into his bank account, his wages lost their status as 'earnings,' and became 

garnishable under K.S.A. 61-3505."

Sievers timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

In his only issue on appeal, Sievers argues the district court erred by concluding 

the wages he earned lost their status as "earnings" once they were deposited into his bank 

account and became garnishable under K.S.A. 61-3505.

This issue presents a question of statutory interpretation, which is a question of 

law over which we have unlimited review. See Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 

149, 432 P.3d 647 (2019). The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is the 

intent of the Legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. State ex rel. Schmidt v. 

City of Wichita, 303 Kan. 650, 659, 367 P.3d 282 (2016). We must first attempt to 

ascertain "legislative intent through the statutory language, giving common words their 

ordinary meanings." Nauheim, 309 Kan. at 149. When a statute is plain and 
4

unambiguous, we need not speculate about the legislative intent behind that clear 

language and will refrain from reading something into the statute that is not readily found 

in its words. See Ullery v. Othick, 304 Kan. 405, 409, 372 P.3d 1135 (2016). We must 

not consider isolated parts of an act but must construe all parts in pari materia. See

Cochran v. Kansas Dept. of Agriculture, 291 Kan. 898, 904, 249 P.3d 434 (2011).

General garnishment procedure in limited action cases

An order of garnishment aids the judgment creditor in collecting its judgment by 

allowing the judgment creditor to attach property owned by the judgment debtor but held 

by the garnishee. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3504(a). Garnishment is defined as the 

procedure in which "the wages, money or intangible property of a person can be seized or 

attached pursuant to an order of garnishment issued by the court under the conditions set 

forth in the order." K.S.A. 61-3502. Our garnishment procedure is entirely statutory. See

LSF Franchise REO I v. Emporia Restaurants, Inc., 283 Kan. 13, 19, 152 P.3d 34 (2007).

In a limited action case like the one here, the judgment creditor starts the 

garnishment process by filing a request asking the district court to issue a garnishment 

order. The request must "designate whether the order of garnishment is to be issued to 

attach earnings or to attach other property of the judgment debtor." K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 

61-3504(b). Depending on the designation provided by the judgment creditor, the 

garnishment order will attach to the judgment debtor's earnings or his or her other 

property. Compare K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507 (order of garnishment, earnings) with 

K.S.A. 61-3505 (order of garnishment, other than earnings).

The order of garnishment is then served on the garnishee along with a form for the 

garnishee's answer. K.S.A. 61-3505(a); K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507(a). When the 

garnishment involves funds held by a financial institution, the judgment creditor must 

have a good faith belief the financial institution "has, or will have, assets of the judgment 
5

debtor." K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3506(g). In such cases, the garnishment order must

include the following statement: "'If you hold any funds, credits or indebtedness 

belonging to or owing the judgment debtor, the amount to be withheld by you pursuant to 

this order of garnishment is not to exceed [110% of the judgment balance still owed].'" 

K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3506(c). The garnishee has 14 days to send its completed answer 

to the judgment creditor and/or the judgment debtor. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3509; K.S.A. 

2019 Supp. 61-3510.

Immediately after the garnishee has been served, the judgment creditor must give 

the judgment debtor notice that: (1) the order has been served; (2) he or she has a right to 

demonstrate the subject property is exempt from garnishment; and (3) he or she has a 

right to request a hearing on such an exemption claim. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3508(a). 

The judgment debtor must request the hearing within 14 days after receiving notice from 

the judgment creditor. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3508(b). If a hearing is held, he or she has 

the burden of showing some or all of the subject property is exempt from garnishment. 

After the hearing, the district court must enter an order "determining the exemption and 

such other order or orders as is appropriate." K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3508(c).

Garnishments on intangible property other than earnings

Relevant to this case, the portion of subject property attached through garnishment 

depends on the status of the garnishee holding the property. When a garnishment order is 

issued to attach intangible property other than earnings, then K.S.A. 61-3505 applies. 

Under K.S.A. 61-3505(b)(1), a nonwage garnishment order has the effect of attaching:

"All intangible property, funds, credits or other indebtedness belonging to or 

owing the judgment debtor, other than earnings, which is in the possession or under the 

control of the garnishee, and all such credits and indebtedness due from the garnishee to 

the judgment debtor at the time of service of the order." (Emphases added.)
6

When the garnishment order is directed to the judgment debtor's employer, then 

K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507 applies. A wage garnishment order has the effect of attaching 

"the nonexempt portion of the judgment debtor's earnings for all pay periods which end 

while the order is in effect. . . . Nonexempt earnings are earnings which are not exempt 

from wage garnishment pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2310." (Emphases added.) K.S.A. 2019 

Supp. 61-3507(b). Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(b):

"Restriction on wage garnishment. Subject to the provisions of subsection (e), 

only the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual may be subjected to wage 

garnishment. The maximum part of such earnings of any wage earning individual which 

may be subjected to wage garnishment for any workweek or multiple thereof may not 

exceed the lessor of: (1) Twenty-five percent of the individual's aggregate disposable 

earnings for that workweek or multiple thereof." (Emphasis added.)

In other words, 75 percent of a judgment debtor's earnings cannot be attached by a 

wage garnishment order. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1) defines "earnings" as 

"compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, 

salary, commission, bonus or otherwise." (Emphases added.)

Funds deposited into a bank account are not "earnings" as defined by K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 

60-2310(a)(1).

Sievers argues the funds paid and electronically deposited into his bank account 

meet K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1)'s definition of "earnings" and therefore could not 

be attached through a nonwage garnishment under K.S.A. 61-3505. His argument 

depends entirely on K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1)'s definition of "earnings" as 

"compensation paid." Based on this definition, he reasons:
7

1. Wages paid are "earnings."

2. Therefore, the wages paid and electronically deposited into his account 

were "earnings."

3. A nonwage garnishment order attaches to subject property "other than 

earnings."

4. Therefore, the funds deposited into his account could not be attached by a 

nonwage garnishment.

At first glance, Sievers' argument appears to apply an ordinary meaning to the 

word "paid," but the effect of his argument removes K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1)'s 

definition of "earnings" from the narrow confines of the employer-employee transactional 

relationship.

K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1)'s definition of "earnings" cannot be separated 

from the procedure of a wage garnishment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507. Only an 

employer, not a financial institution, can act as the garnishee for a wage garnishment. 

Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507(a), if the judgment creditor is "notified by the 

garnishee that the judgment debtor has never been employed by the garnishee or the 

judgment debtor's employment has been terminated," the judgment creditor must 

immediately file a release of the garnishment. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the partial 

exemption on wage garnishment set out under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507—and 

consequently, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1)—specifically applies only to the 

employer-garnishee.

Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507(b), an order for wage garnishment is a 

continuing garnishment; it remains in effect until the judgment is paid or the garnishment 

is released, whichever is sooner. And an order for wage garnishment must attach "the 
8

nonexempt portion of the judgment debtor's earnings for all pay periods which end while 

the order is in effect." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507(b). The plain 

language of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507(a) read together with K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-

3507(b) can only mean the employer-garnishee must continue to withhold the nonexempt 

portion of the judgment debtor's earnings until the judgment is satisfied or the 

garnishment is released. Clearly, an employer-garnishee would have no ability to 

withhold a judgment debtor's wages once those wages have been paid out. Thus, the 

exemption set out under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507(a) and K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-

2310(a)(1) is expressly limited to the payroll process, not the protection of a given fund.

Because the meaning of "earnings" as defined under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-

2310(a)(1) and as applied under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507(a)-(b) is inextricably tied to 

the employer-employee relationship, once a judgment debtor's "earnings" fall outside the 

employer-employee relationship—i.e., the judgment debtor's compensation for a given 

pay period is paid out—his or her wages lose their status as "earnings" and become "other 

than earnings" under K.S.A. 61-3505. Therefore, the district court did not err when it 

found the funds in Sievers' bank account lost their status as "earnings" and became 

garnishable under K.S.A. 61-3505.

The Davis panel interpreted these statutes and reached the same conclusion when 

it held "ordinary wages lose their status as earnings when they are deposited into a bank 

account." 39 Kan. App. 2d at 444. In support, the panel found K.S.A. 61-3507(b)'s 

limiting language—"for all pay periods which end while the order is in effect"—"applies 

expressly only to wages that have not yet been paid." (Emphasis added.) 39 Kan. App. 2d 

at 447-48. The panel went on to find: "Because the wage-garnishment statute is not 

applicable and Dillon's issued a non-wage garnishment, the matter is covered by K.S.A. 

61-3505(b)(1)." 39 Kan. App. 2d at 448. The Davis panel correctly applied K.S.A. 61-

3505 and K.S.A. 61-3507. We find Davis persuasive.
9

In a similar vein, Kansas federal courts have consistently held K.S.A. 60-2310

itself requires that wages are "earnings" only while in the hands of the employergarnishee. For example, in In re Doughman, 263 B.R. 905 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1999), the 

court found the definition of a "wage garnishment" under K.S.A. 60-2310(a)(3) requires

an employer to "withhold" the employee's earnings for the payment of a debt, an act 

which the employer can only accomplish before it pays out the employer's earnings:

"The essence of a wage garnishment proceeding is that the debtor's employer is required 

to withhold some part of the debtor's earnings for a payment of a debt. The Court need 

only to look to the statute to conclude that, irrespective of whether the proceeds lose their 

character as 'earnings' upon deposit into a bank account, the restrictions in K.S.A. § 60-

2310 apply only to wages before they are paid to the debtor. (Emphasis added.) To read 

the statute otherwise would read out of it the portion of the definition of 'wage 

garnishment' referring to withholding earnings for payment of a debt." 263 B.R. at 908.

Other courts have interpreted K.S.A. 60-2310 in a like manner. See In re Adcock,

264 B.R. 708, 712 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2000) ("[T]he court is persuaded . . . that the 

restrictions in [K.S.A.] 60-2310(b) apply only to wages before they are paid to the 

debtor." [Emphasis added.]); In re Resler, 282 B.R. 246, 248 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2002)

("'[P]aid and deposited' earnings are not subject to the same exemption protection 

afforded wages which have been earned but remain in the hands of the payor."). 

Although federal court decisions on issues of state law are not binding on this court, these 

cases are persuasive to the extent they demonstrate wages are "earnings" under K.S.A. 

2019 Supp. 60-2310 only within the confines of the employer-employee relationship.

To support his argument, Sievers claims our Supreme Court's interpretation of the 

word "paid" in K.S.A. 44-514(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (2012) equally applies to K.S.A. 

2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1). K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 44-514(a) provides: "[N]o claim for 

[workers] compensation . . . paid, shall be assignable or subject to levy, execution, 

attachment, garnishment, or any other remedy or procedure for the recovery or collection 
10

of a debt." Similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (2012) provides that "paid or payable" Social 

Security benefits shall not be subject to "execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or 

other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law." Based on 

these statutes, in Decker & Mattison Co. v. Wilson, 273 Kan. 402, 407, 44 P.3d 341 

(2002), and E.W. v. Hall, 260 Kan. 99, 106, 917 P.2d 854 (1996), our Supreme Court 

found, respectively, that workers compensation and Social Security benefits maintain 

their exempt status when they are deposited into a bank account.

Although these cases reach the result argued for by Sievers, his reliance on them is 

misplaced. Workers compensation and Social Security benefits are exempt from any legal 

process, garnishment or otherwise, unless a statutory exception applies. See, e.g., K.S.A. 

2019 Supp. 44-514(b). By contrast, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507 expressly provides that 

earnings are partially exempt from garnishment only while in the hands of the judgment 

debtor's employer. Because the wage garnishment restriction under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 

60-2310(a)(1) is much narrower in scope than the garnishment restrictions under K.S.A. 

2019 Supp. 44-514(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (2012), the courts' decisions in Decker and 

Hall reflect the importance of a specific statutory exemption not present here.

Finally, Sievers' broad interpretation of "earnings" effectively construes the 

language "compensation paid" under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1) to mean 

"compensation paid and deposited and traceable to earnings." Earnings that are paid are 

not necessarily deposited into a bank account, nor are funds deposited into a bank 

account necessarily traceable to earnings. Our Legislature has the authority to enact 

restrictions on garnishment for deposited wages that are directly traceable to earnings as 

other states have.

The states that have done so limit both the manner in which funds are deposited 

and their traceability to wages. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 90.01(d)(1) ("'Property subject to 

garnishment' does not include funds of the debtor on deposit with a bank or other 
11

financial institution in an account in which all funds are . . . [d]eposited electronically on 

a recurring basis"); Fla. Stat. § 222.11(3) ("Earnings that are . . . credited or deposited in 

any financial institution are exempt from attachment or garnishment for 6 months after 

the earnings are received by the financial institution if the funds can be traced and 

properly identified as earnings."); Va. Code Ann. § 34-29(d)(1) ("'[E]arnings' means 

compensation paid or payable for personal services, . . . whether paid directly to the 

individual or deposited with another entity or person on behalf of and traceable to the 

individual"); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704.070(b)(1) ("Paid earnings that can be traced into 

deposit accounts . . . are exempt . . . if prior to payment to the employee they were 

subject to an earnings withholding order or an earnings assignment order for support."). 

(Emphases added.)

But our Legislature has not enacted a restriction on garnishment for deposited 

wages directly traceable to earnings. It is the Legislature's role alone to do so. There is no 

language in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1) to support the expansion of "earnings" to 

include deposited funds that are traceable to earnings. Sievers' reasoning would place a 

restriction on garnishment where the Legislature has not. Sievers’ funds held at CFS were 

subject to garnishment under K.S.A. 61-3505 as the district court found.

Affirmed.

* * *

STANDRIDGE, J., dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision that 

Harold E. Sievers' wages no longer qualified as earnings exempt from attachment under 

K.S.A. 61-3505 after his paycheck was electronically deposited into his bank account.

On January 30, 2019, Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc. (SVH) filed a request for 

garnishment naming Sievers as the defendant and Capitol Federal Savings Bank (CFS) as 
12

the garnishee. SVH specifically designated the garnishment request as one to attach 

property other than earnings:

"The judgment creditor, Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc., requests that the Court 

issue an Order of Garnishment to attach other than earnings of Harold E. Sievers. The 

current balance is $3,789.71 (Plus Interest and Costs). The purpose of the garnishment is 

to recover the judgment due. The judgment amount is the current balance due and may 

also include costs, fees, interest and any other items included in the Judgment." 

(Emphasis added).

On February 1, 2019, and consistent with the type of garnishment designated by 

SVH, the district court issued an "Order for Non Wage Garnishment" and "ORDER OF 

GARNISHMENT (To Attach Other Than Earnings)" to CFS as the garnishee.

On February 8, 2019, Sievers received his regular paycheck in the net amount of 

$749.59; the paycheck was electronically deposited into Sievers' checking account at 

CFS. Before his paycheck was deposited, Sievers had a cash balance of $56.70 in his 

checking account, which he testified were wages/earnings left over from his prior net pay 

in the amount of $771.42 electronically deposited on January 25, 2019. So after his 

paycheck was deposited on Friday, February 8, 2019, Sievers had a total balance of 

$806.29, all of which were wages from his employment. Notwithstanding the electronic 

direct deposit of his wages that morning, Sievers' bank card was declined when he tried 

to make a purchase for approximately $24 at Walmart that afternoon. On Monday, 

February 11, 2019, Sievers went to CFS and discovered that it had withheld $707.01 

from his bank account under the directive set forth in the district court's order of 

garnishment. CFS also withheld $15 as an administrative garnishment fee.

On February 14, 2019, Sievers requested a hearing on whether the property 

withheld by CFS was exempt from attachment because it was earnings under K.S.A. 

2019 Supp. 61-3507. After the hearing, the district court issued an order overruling 
13

Sievers' objection to garnishment. In its order, the court made one factual finding: "An 

'Order of Garnishment (To Attach Other than Earnings)' was issued in the above matter 

on February 1, 2019, to Capitol Federal Savings Bank." Summarily relying on Dillon 

Companies v. Davis, 39 Kan. App. 2d 444, 181 P.3d 570 (2008), and In re Adcock, 264 

B.R. 708 (D. Kan. 2001) (cited incorrectly in the court's decision as 262 B.R. 865), the 

court made one conclusion of law: "[O]nce [Sievers'] paycheck was deposited into his 

bank account, his wages lost their status as 'earnings,' and became garnishable under 

K.S.A. 61-3505." The court then stated that it was not making "any other factual findings 

regarding the evidence and testimony presented."

The district court's order makes clear that its decision was grounded in the law and 

not in fact. The court affirmatively declined to make a factual finding regarding whether 

the funds in the account were earnings; instead, it found as a matter of law that once a 

debtor's wages are deposited into a bank account, they lose their status as earnings for 

purposes of the earnings exemption in K.S.A. 61-3505. The court did not rely on the 

language of the statute to make this conclusion of law, in all likelihood because the 

statutory language does not support such a legal conclusion. In fact, the plain language of 

the statute supports the opposite conclusion.

There is no dispute between the parties that K.S.A. 61-3505, which governs orders 

of garnishments other than earnings, is the controlling statute. As noted above, when a 

statute is plain and unambiguous, this court need not speculate about the legislative intent 

behind that clear language and will refrain from reading something into the statute that is 

not readily found in its words. Given these mandates, we need not look to prior cases 

from this court or cases from foreign jurisdictions but instead to the relevant language of 

the statute itself:

"This section shall apply if the garnishment is to attach intangible property other 

than earnings of the judgment debtor.
14

. . . .

"(b) The order of garnishment shall have the effect of attaching:

(1) All intangible property, funds, credits or other indebtedness belonging to or 

owing the judgment debtor, other than earnings, which is in the possession or under the 

control of the garnishee, and all such credits and indebtedness due from the garnishee to 

the judgment debtor at the time of service of the order." (Emphasis added). K.S.A. 61-

3505.

K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310(a)(1) defines "earnings" for purposes of this act as 

"compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, 

salary, commission, bonus or otherwise." (Emphasis added.) Under this statutory 

definition, wages paid are earnings. And K.S.A. 61-3505 applies only to a garnishment of 

property other than earnings of the judgment debtor. Therefore, the wages that were 

electronically paid to Sievers by his employer via direct deposit to his bank account 

clearly meet the statutory definition of earnings and are exempt from attachment through 

garnishment under K.S.A. 61-3505.

Notwithstanding this plain language, the majority finds that the minute Sievers' 

paycheck was electronically deposited into his bank account, the wages no longer 

qualified as earnings exempt from attachment under K.S.A. 61-3505. Specifically, the 

majority finds that the definition of "earnings" set forth in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-

2310(a)(1) is inextricably tied and therefore applicable to the word "earnings" as it is 

used in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507 ("[t]his section shall apply if the garnishment is to 

attach earnings of the judgment debtor" [emphasis added]) but wholly inapplicable to the 

word "earnings" as it is used in K.S.A. 61-3505 ("[t]his section shall apply if the 

garnishment is to attach intangible property other than earnings of the judgment debtor" 

[emphasis added]). But the majority is doing exactly what it said it could not do: 

speculating about the legislative intent behind the clear language of the statute and 

reading something into the statute that is not readily found in its words. In fact, a close 

reading of the statute affirmatively establishes that the definition of earnings set forth in 
15

K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310 applies to both K.S.A. 61-3505 and K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-

3507.

Although K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310 deals with wage garnishment, the 

Legislature did not include this particular statute under Article 7 of Chapter 60 governing 

attachment and garnishment. Instead, the Legislature enacted the statute under Article 23 

of Chapter 60, which relates to exemptions. L. 1963, ch. 303. In its current version, 

subsection (a) of the statute provides definitions for the overall act and subsection (b) 

governs restrictions on wage garnishment. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310.

Before 1970, K.S.A. 60-2310 did not have a definitional section. See K.S.A. 1969 

Supp. 60-2310. In that year, the Legislature amended the statute to add the definitions 

that still remain in the current version of the statute:

"(a) Definitions. As used in this act, unless the context otherwise requires, the 

following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them 

herein:

(1) 'Earnings' means compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether 

denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus or otherwise;

(2) 'Disposable earnings' means that part of the earnings of any individual 

remaining after the deduction from such earnings of any amounts required by law to be 

withheld;

(3) 'Wage garnishment' means any legal or equitable procedure through which 

the earnings of any individual are required to be withheld for payment of any debt; and

(4) 'Federal minimum hourly wage' means that wage prescribed by subsection 

(a)(1) of section 6 of the federal fair labor standards act of 1938, and any amendments

thereto." L. 1970, ch. 238, § 1.

The Legislature amended the statute in 1970 as part of House Bill 1996 and 

described it as: "An Act relating to attachment and garnishment proceedings; providing 

certain exemptions and restrictions." The 1970 Act also amended K.S.A. 60-717 
16

(attachment and garnishment in regular actions) and K.S.A. 61-2005 (attachment and 

garnishment in limited action proceedings). L. 1970, ch. 238, §§ 7, 10. Given the 1970 

amendments to K.S.A. 60-2310, K.S.A. 60-717, and K.S.A. 61-2005 were all part of the 

same Act, the definition of "earnings" necessarily applied equally to all statutes amended 

in that Act. See L. 1970, ch. 238, § 1 ("As used in this act, unless the context otherwise 

requires, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed 

to them herein.").

In 1972, the Legislature amended K.S.A. 60-717 (attachment and garnishment in 

regular actions) and K.S.A. 61-2005 (attachment and garnishment in limited action 

proceedings) to distinguish between garnishment proceedings brought to attach property 

other than earnings and garnishment proceedings brought to attach earnings. L. 1972, ch. 

222, as amended by ch. 215, §§ 2, 6. The distinctions provided that

 a nonwage order of garnishment had the effect of attaching property, funds, 

credits or other indebtedness belonging to or owing the defendant, other than 

earnings; and

 a wage order of garnishment had the effect of attaching the nonexempt portion 

of the defendant's earnings for the entire normal pay period in which the order 

is served. L. 1972, ch. 222, as amended by ch. 215, §§ 2, 6; see also K.S.A. 

1973 Supp. 60-717(c); K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 61-2005(c).

The Legislature amended the statutes as part of House Bill 1870 and described it as: "An 

Act relating to attachment and garnishment." L. 1972, ch. 222, as amended by ch. 215, 

§ 4. The 1972 Act also amended the introductory language to the definitional subsection 

of K.S.A. 60-2310 by adding the language in italics below:
17

"(a) Definitions. As used in this act and the acts of which this act is amendatory, 

unless the context otherwise requires, the following words and phrases shall have the 

meanings respectively ascribed to them[.]" L. 1972, ch. 222, as amended by ch. 215, § 4.

The language in italics is critical to our reading of the statute today. Although the 

garnishment statutes have been amended since 1972 to separate and renumber the wage 

and nonwage statutes, the clear and unambiguous language of K.S.A. 60-2310(a) dictates 

that the definition of "earnings" applies to statutes that were part of the 1972 Act, even if 

those statutes were thereafter amended or renumbered. To find otherwise, as the majority 

does here, is to completely ignore the plain and unambiguous language in the current 

statute: "As used in this act and the acts of which this act is amendatory, unless the 

context otherwise requires, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings 

respectively ascribed to them." K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2310.

Before concluding, I would note that SVH specifically designated the garnishment 

at issue on appeal as one under K.S.A. 61-3505, which applies to a garnishment of 

property other than earnings of the judgment debtor. And, at the same time it applied for 

and received an order of garnishment directing CFS to attach property belonging to 

Sievers other than his earnings under K.S.A. 61-3505, SVH applied for and received an 

order of garnishment directed to Sievers' employer to attach his wages under K.S.A. 2019 

Supp. 61-3507. The wage garnishment necessarily would have been subject to a partial 

exemption in order for Sievers to retain enough of his wages to support himself during 

the time period in which the garnishment was in effect. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 61-3507. But 

in lieu of attaching partial wages through his employer, SVH chose to attach all of 

Sievers' wages as soon as those wages were electronically deposited into Sievers' 

checking account. SVH's actions in this regard appear to undermine the purpose of the 

wage exemption, which our Supreme Court stated was to protect a class of persons who 

are largely dependent on their wages for support, as well as their families and dependents 

who look to them for a living, and that such a statute should receive a liberal construction 
18

rather than one which would defeat the benevolent object aimed to be accomplished. 

Miller v. Keeling, 185 Kan. 623, 627-28, 347 P.2d 424 (1959).

Based on the clear and unambiguous language of the governing statute, I would 

reverse the decision of the district court and hold the wages that were electronically paid 

to Sievers by his employer via direct deposit to his bank account clearly meet the 

statutory definition of earnings and are exempt from attachment through garnishment 

under K.S.A. 61-3505.