Source: http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20141113_0001427.DAZ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 08:43:29
Document Index: 82314045

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1001', '§ 3205', '§ 3202', '§ 3664', '§ 3613', '§ 3001', '§ 3205', '§ 3202']

| United States v. Canfield
United States of America, Plaintiff,v.Emily F. Canfield, et al., Defendants.
Pending before the Court is Emily F. Canfield's ("Defendant") request for a garnishment hearing, filed on October 28, 2014. (Doc. 108.) On October 29, 2014, the United States ("Plaintiff") filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's request. (Doc. 110.) Defendant has not filed a reply, and the time to do so has passed. The Honorable Neil V. Wake, United States District Judge, referred Defendant's request for a hearing to this Court. For the reasons below, the Court will deny Defendant's request.
On December 20, 2001, Defendant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001, False Statements, Omissions and False Writings Made to an Agency of the United States Government. (Doc. 54.) The Court sentenced Defendant on April 12, 2002 (Doc. 76) and entered judgment on April 23, 2002 (Doc. 82). The Court imposed a sentence of 36 months' probation and ordered restitution, the amount of which the Court set in a separate Order. ( Id. ) On April 25, 2002, the Court ordered Defendant to pay a total of $4, 804, 173.29 in restitution in "regular monthly installments approved by the probation officer, the full amount to be paid 90 days prior to expiration of supervision." (Docs. 82 and 83.)
On October 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Application for Writ of Garnishment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c).[1] (Doc. 104.) In the Application, Plaintiff seeks to garnish non-exempt earnings that are paid to Defendant by Sahuaro Pipeline Corporation, Inc. ("Garnishee") and apply those funds to Defendant's restitution obligation. ( Id. ) On October 16, 2014, the Clerk of the Court issued a Writ of Continuing Garnishment to the Garnishee (Doc. 105) and a Notice of Post Judgment Garnishment to Defendant (Doc. 105-1). The Notice explained to Defendant that "up to 25% of your non-exempt earnings are being garnished in payment of your indebtedness to the United States of America, which has a Judgment, in CR-01-00256-001-PHX-EHC, District of Arizona, in the sum of $4, 804, 173.29." (Doc. 105-1.) The Notice also advised Defendant that:
there are exemptions under the law which protects approximately 75% of your earnings. Your earnings are exempt except for the lesser of 25% per week of your wages or the amount in excess of 30 times the minimum wage. If you have any orders of alimony or child support against you, or if you have other prior garnishments against you, they take priority over this garnishment. If you think you are not being given the benefit of the above exemption, or other court orders or garnishments are not being given proper priority, you may ask the court for a hearing.... At the hearing you may explain to the judge why you think you do not owe the money to the Government.
( Id. ) On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Service of Documents on Judgment
Debtor, certifying that a copy of the Writ, along with the Clerk's Notice of Post Judgment Garnishment and instructions, were sent to Defendant by certified mail and first-class mail on October 22, 2014, at her last known address. (Doc. 107.)
In response to the Notice from the Clerk of the Court, Defendant filed a letter to the Court requesting a hearing. (Doc. 108.) Defendant's letter provides the following reasons for her request:
On December 1, 2014 my employer will be renewing the group health, dental and insurance policies and has been told there is going to be a minimum increase of 18% in the policy premiums, which will most likely be passed on to the employee. If and when this happens my disposable income on which the 25% rule is calculated will be reduced from its current amount and I need to know how my employer is to notify the court of this matter, so that the payments can be adjusted. Additionally, I am on a High Deductible Insurance Plan (basically major health coverage) and must come out of pocket for most procedures until my annual deductible of $4, 000.00 is met. At this time I have medical... and dental work that I'm responsible for 100% of the cost and I'm afraid that the garnishment amount going to be taken from my pay check is not going to allow me cover these costs.
On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's request for a hearing. (Doc. 110.) Plaintiff asserts that the issues a judgment debtor may raise at a hearing challenging a garnishment are limited to those identified in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d). Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not raised any of those issues in her letter and, therefore, the Court should deny Defendant's request for a hearing. ( Id. ) On November 3, 2014, Garnishee filed an Answer to the Writ of Garnishment, stating that: (1) it employed Defendant on the date the Writ was served; (2) it anticipates owing earnings to Defendant after the date the Writ was served; (3) it pays Defendant biweekly; and (4) Defendant's last two pay dates were October 17, 2014 and October 31, 2014. (Doc. 111.)
The United States may enforce restitution orders in the same manner as it enforces fines, or "by all other available and reasonable means." 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). Furthermore, the United States may enforce a judgment imposing a fine or restitution "in accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment under Federal law or State law." 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a) and (f). The Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990 ("FDCPA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308, sets forth the exclusive practices and procedures for the collection of a civil judgment under federal law. One such procedure is a writ of garnishment against a judgment-debtor's property, including nonexempt disposable earnings under 28 U.S.C. § 3205.[2]
The FDCPA allows a judgment debtor to request a hearing upon receipt of the Clerk's Notice of Post Judgment Garnishment. See 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d). The statute provides that upon such a request, the court shall hold a hearing "as soon as practicable." Id. The ...