Harris v. National Bank and Trust Co.
| Citation | 406 So.2d 968 |
| Parties | Linda S. HARRIS v. NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY. Civ. 2894. |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1981 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jane DeLissovoy, Montgomery, for Legal Services Corp. of Alabama.
No brief for appellee.
National Bank and Trust Company obtained a writ of garnishment against the salary of Ms. Linda Harris in an effort to collect a default judgment entered against her and her now-estranged husband in 1975. The default was for money owed the bank on a Mastercharge account, and was in the amount of $2,300.97. The garnishment was issued September 15, 1980, to Ms. Harris' employer, Tuskegee Institute. The employer answered October 2, 1980, admitting Ms. Harris' employment and agreeing to withhold funds from her salary. No specific amount per week or month was set out in either the writ or the answer thereto.
Ms. Harris received notice of the writ itself, but there is no indication in the record that she was ever notified of her employer's answer. Tuskegee Institute held money out of her wages in September although the answer was not filed until October. One hundred twenty-three dollars and fifty-six cents ($123.56) was withheld each month from September to December, 1980.
On December 9, 1980, Ms. Harris filed a motion to amend the writ of garnishment in the District Court of Macon County. She asked that the writ be made to conform to § 5-19-15, Code (1975), a section of the "Mini Code" that deals with garnishment for collection of money with respect to certain consumer transactions. She also asked the court to order that all funds already withheld by Tuskegee Institute be released to her. The bank moved to dismiss the garnishment on December 11, 1980. Ms. Harris filed an additional motion for refund of monies on January 20, 1981. The district court granted the bank's motion to dismiss on January 23, 1981, and in the same order denied Ms. Harris' motion for refund of monies. Upon dismissal of the writ of garnishment, Tuskegee Institute refunded $247.12 to Ms. Harris, purportedly the money withheld in November and December. It is unclear from the record who has possession of the money withheld in September and October 1980, because there has been no disposition of it by court order.
Ms. Harris appealed the district court decision to the Circuit Court of Macon County. The circuit court denied her motion for refund of monies May 13, 1981. From that order, Ms. Harris appeals.
Section 5-19-15 of the "Mini Code" reads as follows:
Prior to entry of judgment, the creditor may not attach unpaid earnings of the debtor by garnishment. The garnishment procedure after judgment shall be as provided in sections 6-6-370, 6-6-371, 6-6-390 through 6-6-394, 6-6-410 through 6-6-414, 6-6-430, 6-6-431, 6-6-461 and 6-10-7; except, that with respect to consumer loans, consumer credit sales and consumer leases, the amount subject to garnishment shall not exceed the lesser of:
(1) Twenty percent of his disposable earnings for that week; or
(2) The amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed 50 times the federal minimum hourly wage in effect when payable.
"Disposable earnings" means that part of the earnings of an individual remaining after deduction of amounts required by law to be withheld, and disposable earnings shall not include periodic payments pursuant to a pension, retirement or disability program.
Ms. Harris' purchases on her Mastercharge account bring her within the ambit of § 5-19-15. After certain calculations, it is apparent that her salary was exempt from garnishment. Ms. Harris' gross salary per month was $568.67. The federal minimum wage at the time of the garnishment was $3.10 per hour. Un...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morton v. U.S.
...Court in Laborde v. Ubarri, supra, (attachor required to return property). Similarly, in a recent decision, Harris v. National Bank & Trust Co., 406 So.2d 968 (Ala.Civ.App.1981), where a writ of garnishment was void, an employee was held to be entitled to return of her garnisheed wages from......
-
Avery v. East Alabama Medical Center
...is no garnishable property existing to support a writ of garnishment, it should be quashed or dismissed. See Harris v. National Bank & Trust Co., 406 So.2d 968 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). Contrary to Avery's contention, however, we find garnishable property sufficient to support a writ of garnishme......
-
Ex parte Avery
...Appeals recognized that a writ of garnishment should be quashed if there is no garnishable property, citing Harris v. National Bank & Trust Co., 406 So.2d 968 (Ala.Civ.App.1981). The court found that there was garnishable property in this case, in the form of future wages, pursuant to Code ......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Emigh
...for a new trial to enable the plaintiff to prove actual damages, if any, resulting from the garnishment. See Harris v. National Bank & Trust Co., 406 So.2d 968 (Ala.Civ.App.1981) (one has separate action for actual damages in case of wrongful garnishment). It is so REVERSED AND REMANDED. JO......