Opinion ID: 510678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Under the Federal Consumer Credit Act

Text: 11 The Act generally prohibits garnishments above 25% of income, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1673. The District Court, assuming that the Act creates a private right of action, found that these attachments are garnishments for the purposes of the Act. For the purpose of our analysis of this issue, we make the same assumption. The Act makes an exception for support orders, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1673(b)(1)(A), which may reach 50% of income, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1673(b)(2)(A). 1 There is no allegation that this proportion was exceeded here. In order for the exception to apply, the support order must be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, there must be substantial due process, and the order must be subject to judicial review. 12 The District Court found that these conditions were met, and plaintiffs' claims concerning the jurisdiction of the Ohio court and the availability of judicial review are wholly without merit. See Ohio Revised Code Secs. 2301.34 (default defined as failure to comply with terms of support order issued by court of common pleas); 3109.07 (support orders appealable to the court of appeals). The question of whether the Ohio procedures violated 2 the Act therefore depends on whether there was substantial due process, an issue discussed below.