Court Opinion

ID: 9660464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:14:09.644761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:19.684930
License: Public Domain

M. R. Knoblock, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). Although I agree, and therefore concur with the majority in the analysis and holdings in parts I and n of its opinion, I must dissent with regard to part in.
As noted by the majority, the intent of the Garnishment Restrictions subchapter of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 USC 1671 et seq., is to grant an exemption for wage earners from burdensome garnishments, to protect employment of wage earners, and to prevent bankruptcies. I submit that the major*73ity’s application of this subchapter is not in accord with this intent. “There is every indication that Congress, in an effort to avoid the necessity of bankruptcy, sought to regulate garnishment in its usual sense as a levy on periodic payments of compensation needed to support the wage earner and his family on a week-to-week, month-to-month basis.” Kokoszka v Belford, 417 US 642, 651; 94 S Ct 2431; 41 L Ed 2d 374 (1974). The periodic payments sought to be levied upon by plaintiff in this case clearly are not “compensation needed to support the wage earner and his family.” I would therefore hold that the Garnishment Restrictions subchapter is inapplicable in this case and would affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.