Guardian Loan Co. of Plainfield v. Baylis
| Decision Date | 22 October 1970 |
| Citation | 270 A.2d 304,112 N.J.Super. 44 |
| Parties | GUARDIAN LOAN COMPANY OF PLAINFIELD, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. William BAYLIS and Anita Baylis, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey District Court |
Daniel A. Rosenberg, Irvington, for plaintiff (Rosenberg & Rosenberg, Irvington, attorneys).
Robert J. Blumenfeld, Elizabeth, of the Union County Legal Services Corp., for defendants.
McKENZIE, J.D.C.
On May 8, 1970, plaintiff entered a default judgment in the sum of $667.93 against defendants and proceeded with the issuance of execution. On June 8, 1970, the constable levied on a bank account in the name of defendant Anita Baylis in the Somerset Trust Company, in which there was a balance of $720.09.
Defendants object to plaintiff's motion for an order directed to the bank to pay over to the constable the amount necessary to satisfy its judgment, claiming that the funds on deposit represent payments received from the Union County Welfare Board under the Aid to Dependent Children Program and therefore are exempt from levy.
From the affidavit of defendant William Baylis and an examination of the monthly statements issued by the bank for the account in question it appears that in fact the account is used solely for the deposit of funds received monthly by the defendants from the Union County Welfare Board. No unusual accumulations are indicated. Substantially all of the balance is used each month. The levy in question was made immediately following the deposit in the account of the monthly assistance check from the welfare board in the sum of $696.
Chapter 10 of Title 44 of the New Jersey Statutes enacted in 1959, establishes the program of assistance for dependent children. There is no section of the act which specifically exempts from levy or other legal process the funds paid to eligible persons.
In Essex County Welfare Board v. Philpott, 104 N.J.Super. 280, 249 A.2d 639 (Cty.Ct.1969), plaintiff board, proceeding on a reimbursement agreement executed by the welfare recipient pursuant to N.J.S.A. 44:7--14, attempted to recover funds paid to the recipient from moneys received by her from the Social Security Administration as a retroactive award for disability benefits. The pertinent federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 407, reads The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in euity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.
The court, in refusing to order the funds to be paid over to plaintiff, stated:
The intent of Congress is clear, namely, to protect the recipient from th attack of creditors before and after the moneys are paid, and to permit him or his dependents to obtain the necessities of life. As long as the fund is not converted to a permanent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freedom Finance Co. v. Fleckenstein
...Hoffman v. Hoffman, 8 N.J. 157, 84 A.2d 441 (1951); 31 Am.Jur.2d, Exemptions, § 97 at 415; Cf Guardian Loan Co. of Plainfield v. Baylis, 112 N.J.Super. 44, 270 A.2d 304 (Dist.Ct.1970). The purpose of the exemption is to protect from dissipation the usually small amounts which pensioners and......
-
Northwest Engineering Credit Union v. Jahn
...955, 20 Ill.Dec. 89, 379 N.E.2d 922 (1978); MacQuarrie v. Balch, 362 Mass. 151, 285 N.E.2d 103 (1972); Guardian Loan Co. v. Baylis, 112 N.J.Super. 44, 270 A.2d 304 (N.J.Co.1970); Consumer Credit Corp. v. Lewis, 63 Misc.2d 928, 313 N.Y.S.2d 879 (1970); Goodyear Service Store v. Speck, 48 Ohi......
-
MacQuarrie v. Balch
...Cas. & Sur. Co., 370 U.S. 159, 82 S.Ct. 1231, 8 L.Ed.2d 407 (veterans' benefits, 38 U.S.C. § 3101 (a)); Guardian Loan Co. of Plainfield v. Baylis, 112 N.J.Super. 44, 270 A.2d 304 (AFDC benefits); Century Indem. Co. v. Mead, 121 Vt. 434, 159 A.2d 325; Essex County Welfare Bd. v. Philpott, 10......
-
Credit Thrift of America v. Kittrell, 76--43
...wages are entitled to the protection of sec. 11--3. Defendant seeks to support her argument by citing Guardian Loan Company of Plainsfield v. Baylis (1970), 112 N.J.Super. 44, 270 A.2d 304, and Consumer Credit Corp. v. Lewis (1970), 63 Misc.2d 928, 313 N.Y.S.2d 879, which are cases from New......