Hillcrest Medical Center v. Monroy
| Decision Date | 27 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 95,633.,95,633. |
| Citation | 2002 OK CIV APP 10,38 P.3d 931 |
| Parties | HILLCREST MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Nadine M. MONROY, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Susan E. Lentz, Works & Lentz, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Laura Emily Frossard, John P. Kerr, Jr., Legal Services of Eastern Oklahoma, Inc., Tulsa, OK, for Defendant/Appellant.
Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4. KEITH RAPP, Judge:
¶ 1 The trial court defendant, Nadine M. Monroy (Monroy), appeals a decision which refused to retroactively refund to her the wages garnished by the trial court plaintiff, Hillcrest Medical Center (Hillcrest).
BACKGROUND
¶ 2 The essential facts are not disputed. Hillcrest holds a money judgment against Monroy which it obtained by default on May 16, 2000. On June 19, 2000, Hillcrest issued a one-time garnishment of Monroy's wages. Monroy filed a claim for exemption but failed to appear for the hearing on the claim. Consequently, the court denied the claim.
¶ 3 Thereafter, Hillcrest issued a continuing wage garnishment on July 13, 2000. Between July 13, 2000 and November 13, 2000, sundry amounts were withheld from Monroy's wages pursuant to the garnishment and paid to Hillcrest.
¶ 4 On October 31, 2000, Monroy filed a motion to exempt wages from garnishment on the ground of hardship. At the hearing on this motion, Monroy also requested a refund of all sums garnished under the continuing garnishment.
¶ 5 The trial court found that Monroy was presently, and for the future, entitled to an exemption of wages from garnishment on hardship grounds. The garnishment was stayed; however, the court denied, in part, Monroy's request for a refund. The court did direct a refund of the wages taken by garnishment from October 30, 2000, through the date of the hearing.
¶ 6 Monroy now appeals the court's decision which denied the full refund. The remaining aspects of the trial court's decision were not appealed by either party.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 7 Where the facts are not disputed an appeal presents only a question of law. Baptist Bldg. Corp. v. Barnes, 1994 OK CIV APP 71, ¶ 5, 874 P.2d 68, 69. The appellate court has the plenary, independent, and nondeferential authority to reexamine a trial court's legal rulings. Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 1996 OK 125, 932 P.2d 1100 n. 1. Matters involving legislative intent present questions of law which are examined independently and without deference to the trial court's ruling. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991); Keizor v. Sand Springs Ry. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 98, ¶ 5, 861 P.2d 326, 328.
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
¶ 8 The issue before this Court is: What relief may a trial court grant to a judgment debtor in the case of a continuing garnishment of wages to satisfy a money judgment, that does not involve child support, when that judgment debtor claims and establishes an exemption of wages from garnishment based upon hardship?
¶ 9 The original wage garnishment statute provided for a one-at-a-time method of garnishment. R.L.1910, § 4822-4841. Now, the provision for a single wage garnishment for other than child support is 12 O.S. Supp. 2000, § 1173. This scheme persisted until 1989, when the Legislature amended the garnishment statutes to provide for additional types of garnishment. 1989 Okla. Sess. Laws, c. 236, § 1(B); now, 12 O.S. Supp. 2000, § 1171 (B). Today, the garnishment statute provides for garnishment in child support matters, general garnishment, noncontinuing earnings garnishment, and continuing earnings garnishment. 12 O.S. Supp. 2000, § 1171 (B). Here, the review is concerned with only earnings garnishments.
¶ 10 However, not all earnings may be reached by garnishment. The Homestead and Exemption statute exempts a percentage of earnings. 31 O.S. Supp.2000, § 1. At one time the statutes provided an additional earnings exemption based upon hardship. After execution was issued, if it appeared that a third person held property belonging to the judgment debtor, a hearing could be conducted and an order issued by the trial court commanding that such property be applied to the judgment. However, in cases of hardship, earnings within the three months next preceding the order, would be exempt from this directive. 12 O.S.1961, § 851.
¶ 11 Section 851 was deemed an additional exemption. The purpose of the exemption was to protect the debtor's family from privation and to supply to them the minimum requirements from a decent and wholesome livelihood. Smith v. Britton, 1939 OK 204, ¶ 8, 89 P.2d 953, 955; Barteldes Seed Co. v. Gunn, 1916 OK 876, 159 P. 502, 502-03.
¶ 12 The Legislature repealed Section 851 in 1965, but retained its essential provisions as part of the Homestead and Exemption Code as 31 O.S. Supp.1965, § 1.1. 1965 Okla. Sess. Laws, c. 301, eff. June 24, 1965. A judgment debtor could exempt, on family hardship grounds, his earnings for his personal services rendered at any time during the ninety days next preceding the issuing of such process. 31 O.S. Supp.1965, § 1.1.
¶ 13 In 1983, the garnishment statute and Section 1.1 were amended. The amendment removed the ninety day exemption and in its place made provision for the judgment debtor to request a hearing to exempt from the process "that portion of his earnings from personal services necessary for the maintenance of a family supported wholly or partially by the labor of the debtor." The amendment set forth criteria to guide the determination of whether hardship existed. These criteria were expressed in terms of standard of living and minimal subsistence level of living. Upon finding that a hardship existed, the statute provided that the trial court "may order all or a portion of the personal wages exempt." 1983 Okla. Sess. Laws, c. 50, § 6, eff. April 26, 1983; 31 O.S. Supp.1983, § 1.1.
¶ 14 The amendment provided that the garnishment statute procedures applied to the hearing on the exemption request. These procedures were contained in 12 O.S. Supp.1983, §§ 1172.2, 1174(D). An application for exemption had to be filed within ten days from the answer date of the garnishee. 12 O.S. Supp.1983, § 1172.2 (A).
¶ 15 Then, as stated before, in 1989 the Legislature enacted the different types of garnishment. The continuing garnishment remains as a single instance of garnishment. However, Norwest Colorado, Inc. v. Partridge Capitol Corp., 1995 OK CIV APP 19, ¶¶ 8 and 9, 891 P.2d 624, 627.
¶ 16 With the adoption of a "continuing earnings garnishment" an apparent need arose to revise the hardship exemption statute and the procedure to present the exemption. The criteria for exemption remained, but the provisions of Section 1.1 of Title 31 were amended to provide that upon finding of hardship the court may:
1990 Okla. Sess. Laws, c. 248, § 9, eff. May 21, 1990.
¶ 17 This amendment to Section 1.1 left intact the provision that a judgment debtor may file an application for an exemption hearing with the proceeding to be conducted as provided in 12 O.S. Supp.1990, §§ 1172.2 and 1174(D). Under the procedure, a judgment debtor would be served a copy of the exemption form and request for hearing. Implicitly under Section 1172.2, the judgment debtor had ten days from the answer date of the garnishee to apply for exemption because that Section authorized payment of the funds to the judgment creditor after ten days if no exemption application was filed. Section 1174(D) provided the mechanism for service of the application for exemption.1
¶ 18 With the 1995 amendment to Section 1172.2, potential confusion over whether a five-day rule or a ten-day rule or some other rule applied, with their corresponding beginning points and filing procedures. Then, the question became: What is the legal consequence of the specific omission, from Section 1.1 of Title 31, of the timing to apply for exemption established in Section 1174(C)?
¶ 19 Here, Hillcrest would have this Court fashion a cutoff date, whereas Monroy maintains that the claim for exemption may be filed at any time but must be by motion rather than the statutory form if filed after five days from the receipt of the notice that exemptions may be claimed. Thus, Hillcrest here argues that regardless of whether a court may modify a continuing earnings garnishment, a late filing operates as a time bar to retroactive modification.
¶ 20 First, this Court holds that Section 1174(C) does apply in cases of postjudgment continuing wage garnishments. Thus, under Section 1174(C), the judgment debtor may use either (1) the five-day period, provided in Section 1174(C), from receipt of the statutory notice form in which to request a hearing on exemption, including the hardship exemption under 31 O.S. Supp.2000, § 1.1, or, (2) the judgment debtor may seek, at a later date, exemption by motion, also recorded in Section 1174(C), at any time after the initial five-day period and until the continuing garnishment terminates under Section 1173.4(G).2
¶ 21 It appears that this five-day procedure presents a one-time opportunity because the statute does not impose a continuous duty on the judgment creditor or the garnishee to notify the judgment debtor of the right to claim exemptions during the course of the continuing garnishment. 12 O.S. Supp.2000, §§ 1173.4 (D), 1173.4(F)(5), 1174(C).
¶ 22 This holding comports with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ultra Thin, Inc. v. Lane
...social security exemption in these garnishment proceedings. ¶ 5 By Summary Order, and in stated reliance on Hillcrest Medical Center v. Monroy, 2002 OK CIV APP 10, 38 P.3d 931, the trial court denied Debtor's objection to garnishment as untimely after Debtor had actual notice of the garnish......
-
Glapion v. Mashburn (In re Glapion)
...supported wholly or partially by the labor of the debtor." Okla. Stat. tit 31, § 1.1(A) (2019); see also Hillcrest Med. Ctr. v. Monroy, 38 P.3d 931, 934-35 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (reviewing a partial history of the hardship exemption). Such additional exemptions are not at issue in this app......