JR Dairy Supply, Inc. v. Kieffer
| Decision Date | 06 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2876-FT,92-2876-FT |
| Parties | NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. J.R. DAIRY SUPPLY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnie KIEFFER, Defendant, LAND O'LAKES, INC., Garnishee-Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Wood county: DENNIS D. CONWAY, Judge. Affirmed.
1
J.R. Dairy Supply, Inc., appeals from an order dismissing its garnishment complaint against Arnie Kieffer, the principal defendant in this garnishment action, and Land O'Lakes, the garnishee defendant. The issue is whether the trial court erred in concluding, after making various statutory and other deductions, that Land O'Lakes had no garnishable funds of Kieffer's in its possession. We affirm.
The facts are not disputed. J.R. Dairy obtained a default judgment for $1,020.79 against Kieffer, a dairy farmer, for goods and services purchased by Kieffer on an open account. After obtaining the judgment, J.R. Dairy filed a garnishment action against Land O'Lakes, issuer of Kieffer's milk check.
In its answer to the complaint, Land O'Lakes asserted that after applying the procedures contained in the garnishment statutes, no money remained in Kieffer's account that would be subject to garnishment. Because no taxes were deducted from Kieffer's milk check, Land O'Lakes determined that Kieffer's net income was the same as his gross income of $9,158.14. Land O'Lakes then deducted seventy-five percent of that figure, or $6,868.20, as Kieffer's subsistence exemption under sec. 815.18(3)(h), Stats. Next, Land O'Lakes deducted $3,040.04 to satisfy Kieffer's assignments to Land O'Lakes for other outstanding debts. J.R. Dairy concedes that these assignments took priority over its claim. Finally, $636.16 was deducted to pay other commitments including an insurance payment, government obligations and shipping charges. All this resulted in a negative balance, according to Land O'Lakes.
The trial court concluded that Land O'Lakes' calculations were correct and dismissed the garnishment complaint. J.R. Dairy appeals. The issue is one of law--the application of statutes to undisputed facts--which we review de novo. Sheely v. DHSS, 150 Wis.2d 320, 328, 442 N.W.2d 1, 5 (1989).
Section 812.18(2m)(b), Stats., provides: "If the property which is the subject of a garnishment action is the proceeds from the sale of ... dairy products ... the garnishee shall pay over to the defendant on the date when the payment would normally be made any exempt amount under s. 815.18(3)(h)." Section 815.18(3)(h), Stats., exempts "[s]eventy-five percent of [a] debtor's net income for each one week pay period," for the subsistence of the debtor and his or her dependents.
The statutes are plain and unambiguous, so we give them their ordinary and accepted meaning. Northwest Eng'g Credit Union v. Jahn, 120 Wis.2d 185, 187, 353 N.W.2d 67, 68 (Ct.App.1984).
The third statute, however, is not so clear. Section 815.18(2)(n), Stats., defines "net income" as "gross receipts paid or payable for personal services or derived from rents, dividends or interest less federal and state deductions required by law to be withheld." Because the statute only defines income derived from personal services, rents, dividends or interest as gross income, it is not clear whether earnings from the sale of milk is gross income as well. Thus, J.R. Dairy asserts, if this statute were strictly applied, Kieffer would be denied a subsistence exemption.
In construing a statute we first look to the language of the statute itself. State v. Schuman, 173 Wis.2d 743, 747, ---- N.W.2, 496 N.W.2d 684d ----, (Ct.App.1993). The entire section of a statute and related sections are to be considered in its construction or interpretation. Omernick v. State, 64 Wis.2d 6, 12, 218 N.W.2d 734, 738 (1974). In determining the meaning of a single word or phrase in a statute, it is necessary to consider the statute as a whole. State ex rel. Tilkens v. Bd. of Trustees of Firemen's Pension Fund, 253 Wis. 371, 373, 34 N.W.2d 248, 249 (1948).
Section 812.18(2m)(b), Stats., requires the garnishee defendant to pay over to the defendant any exempt amount under sec. 815.18(3)(h), Stats. By making specific reference to sec. 815.18(3)(h), sec. 812.18(2m)(b) extends the subsistence exemption to earnings derived from the sale of dairy products. Thus, the statute treats earnings from the sale of dairy products the same as other forms of "net income," even though they are not explicitly included within the rubric of 815.18(2)(n). Because sec. 815.18 must be "construed to secure its full benefit to debtors," sec. 815.18(1), we conclude that "net income," as defined in sec. 815.18(2)(n), includes the proceeds from the sale of dairy products as gross receipts.
A conclusion to the contrary would deny dairy farmers, such as Kieffer, the benefit of the subsistence exemption merely because the express language of the statute defining "net income" does not explicitly refer to earnings from the sale of dairy products. Such a construction is inconsistent with the statute when considered as a whole as well as its express purpose.
Kieffer's gross income for the period in question was $9,158.14. Because no federal or state taxes were deducted from the check, we agree with Land O'Lakes and the trial court that Kieffer's net income was the same as his gross income. Thus, Kieffer's subsistence exemption under sec. 815.18(3)(h), would be $6,868.61, or seventy-five percent of his net income, leaving a balance of $2,289.53.
Next, Kieffer's assignments and other payments, which J.R. Dairy concedes have priority over its garnishment, total $3,676.20. Subtracting that amount from $2,289.53, leaves a balance of $1,386.67. Because a negative balance results after the deductions are made, we conclude that there is no money available for J.R. Dairy to garnish. 2
Finally, J.R. Dairy argues, in the alternative, that Kieffer's "net income" should not have been calculated until after Kieffer's assignments had been deducted, thus leaving sufficient funds for garnishment. Emphasizing the terms "paid or payable" in sec. 815.18(2)(n), Stats., defining net income as "gross receipts paid or payable for personal services," J.R. Dairy contends that the assignments should be excluded from the calculation of Kieffer's net income under the statute because they were deducted from his check before he received it. 3
As we have noted, J.R. Dairy does not claim that its debt takes precedence over any of the assignments. And if, as it argues, all such prior-debt assignments were...
To continue reading
Request your trial