Title: Pellerin v. Pellerin
Citation: 534 S.W.2d 767
Docket Number: 75-341
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: April 5, 1976

534 S.W.2d 767 (1976) Gordon M. PELLERIN, Appellant, v. Kathryn Herring PELLERIN, Appellee. No. 75-341. Supreme Court of Arkansas. April 5, 1976. *768 Lesly W. Mattingly, Jacksonville, for appellant. Spitzberg, Mitchell &amp; Hays, Little Rock, for appellee. HOLT, Justice. This appeal results from an order of the chancellor dismissing appellant's motion to quash garnishments of his income from his present employer and also his monthly retirement income from the United States government. The garnishments were issued to collect a $4,640 judgment that was rendered by the chancellor in June, 1972, for child support arrearage. Appellant first contends that the chancellor erred in not applying the restrictions on garnishments found in 15 U.S.C. § 1673(a) (1970). We cannot agree. § 1673 provides in pertinent part: Appellant argues that here there is no order, only a judgment for a debt due. He asserts an order and judgment are separate and distinct and, therefore, the exception under § 1673(b)(1) does not apply. The legislative history of § 1673 appears to the contrary. In pertinent part, it provides: If the exception in subsection (b)(1), supra, was restricted to a mere order and not a judgment, it would render that subsection meaningless. There can be no garnishment on a support order that has not been reduced to a judgment. Cf. Brun v. Rembert, 227 Ark. 241, 297 S.W.2d 940 (1957). We hold that, in the case at bar, the judgment, based upon a court order for child support arrearage, comes within the exception in § 1673(b)(1) and the chancellor was, therefore, correct in holding that the limitations of § 1673(a) were not applicable. Appellant next asserts that the chancellor erred in applying the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 659 (Supp.1974) to a judgment entered on June 22, 1972. § 659 provides: The lower court applied this act to allow garnishment of appellant's retirement income from the United States Air Force. Appellant's position is that to permit garnishment of his income based upon a 1972 judgment is to give § 659 a retroactive effect. We do not read this statute to mean, as appellant contends, that it does not apply to judgments rendered before January 1, 1975. By the provisions of this act the shielding cloak of sovereign immunity to garnishment proceedings was merely removed. Affirmed.