Household Finance Corp. v. Phipps

2 Mass. Supp. 68

• Court: Massachusetts District Court
• Decided: November 21, 1980
• Docket: No. 38553
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF DECISION-ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TRUSTEE PROCESS TO ATTACH WAGES

T his is a motion by a judgment creditor, seeking to attach wages due the defendant from his employer, as now authorized by Rule 4.2 of the Mass Rules of Civil Procedure. Because oí a conflict between existing practices in this Commonwealth and applicable Fedeial law. the court is constrained to deny the motion.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff has .a judgment in its favor in the sum of S! ,187.06. execution for this amount having issued on 9/25/80. By affidavit dated 10/24/80 filed in support of its motion to attach, the plaintiff asserts that the sum remains unpaid notwithstanding demand, that the trustee holds monies or credits due the defendant for "wages of personal labor or servil (••• ", and that the "plaintiff has no knowledge ofodiei assets of the defendant that can be used to satisfy any Judgment." T he Miami iffniov e:. for an attachment in the amomii i>f 8 1.400,00.1 tad the motion been '■¡lloved <"ui ¡em practice would have called upon tin- plamuifs counsel to complete a summons to Tiuxn-e in the form appearing ii. 1 onn 2 \ >4 tik Appendix of-Forms pioinnhsUed as .¡n iPu.-UraMon of" Ok; procedil’Ut require..'C’iI:. n !hc kmc*-. Rule 4.2 ¡. '¡‘¡¡>':.i,;a -i ¡-.ir,;)' .th e pastee be noliíes- • i¡ ; •, 4 sought to l>e attached" ■-Í .mb ..“■i.'ur of ,. rgv •. . . asaicbv law c-einp' non. attachment' and that the tino,.-- Í ■ di.i.r <■4 ¡o pay over to the defendant die cu.mpied ..../onm.

The summons detail vd ie ! Vtm 2,\ of the Appendix oi Tonns doe:, indeed eon tain the following paragraph:

"If the credits of the sui-i d-T-nd ml which are in you. hand-. ■» >,< ,iou include wages ha pei-oaui !:ii»<r "• pei.virl.'t-1 '■¡\i<.«“, of : 1 dcf. ml,aid you a.u ni o by u.-iisi' >.i .hat ¡:. au-'i-. 1 hot exceeding Si 23. pci vecé ;■! -ur!’ wages are exempt imm thv- ¡>o;-, bincm aml'you me dm acted to pac <-vei such exempted amoum <o said dvfi-’i’.i.m< in the same manner and at ¡he -ami (dm as each such ai-mant wo ¡M a.c,- n paid ¡film, aiU'-Tii'- m hid ¡-u r-¡ ■ : mace.

1 he Rule aiki t ■ >’v.. ..m nm , q. }>r,-.. sions ofti.l . o. .’•F; S. eiion a- m.••( recently amended b\ S:. PC , • : , ).

Section I. The juv.em iliftuLU’.v urAes front the fact tíiat a Matute <>í ¡he ! uited States impose'' requirements , .'«eir¡Hm,,suitts of money Une wage cmm ¡• '-..m attachment'.) '.inn n.,1 •(• est.n..i ■ T¡

those imposed ry die' ’• A mm m .d i While the l\>nn i>f mi mu .ns • no-,.. h: ¡. takes account of me m;;¡ c ¡.'•me. a r--- i te, as to the existence or uppiienb'Ho of die Federa! linmatiou ■

The existence <>i :!->■ í e.fa.i1 n am. clearly not Ken ¡lots . ,r il ;,>■ i: ,! not been aodie-a.-J, : y a .nM- A' Appendix of i onn-.. N • -a mematorx wpo Mo. -.,i I;;,:¡. Process semi .--’h.o'... . . >-t. ■ > i the Fede:a! staluto: ooh •_ .

See. Stmsh and A’bes. ‘FT-., Section -FA \ Nod,:-. : ¡Mi >'■■■ v . tion PAC ü¡ . •. dn..': . ■■. Forms AniH’iai, d. s\.,¡..¡ A m.! > • iTo■;«¡Methods ot Piacm o S.*'\>,l.í ; (Pocket Part b> Al,,. rmi. i’i ’ i Simpson and Aip’.i n d , n.. < i Law. (1980 Poeke’ Pa a. S ■. m i i ■ Slperini i Ant!»-: ' -van A ■ -i; dve howevc’. take i. ■ i A.' f.d.’i.n '■■■ : ■ this Consumer Rigins s-t.;.,u.di.. .. v tion 293. In. ''I’’ (.ill .Iv n u, ;m. n ¡in familiar Mass. Pru’.’in .. eies’>. See. also. MuMm.\ '-•f.me;A ¡m i bs-r.e Court Clerk Mngn-aV.c-'. ¡, t .' which also cites 'he F..o ! *.'• •’i he F. deral restriction appears in Title Í :M Section Í (¡73 of the United States Code and has been in effect since 1968. It provides with some exceptions not presently peniuehl. "the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual f1 s no, workweek which is not subjected to r'c .i-'CMii may not exceed

( ! ■ 5 = pi.".' •vmum of his disposable * a mag: tor that week, or S A) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty ¡¡me-, the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by Section 206(a)( 1) M (hie A9 in effect ul the time the un - a", payable, whichever is

! '. ; • .-ble runungs" is defined in Sec-R.-ii M 7 '< t. • ;m an "that part of the earnings '•I'm.. MdMid-"iI mmainiugafter the deducd«>n i'li’in those earnings ot any amounts icquircd by law to be withheld."

T U--I o me ‘ evera! features of the statute hi-.h denmiiMraie the existence of it strong ■iu.l’.iRm.', < 'oiigiessioin' policy. One is due >ci O ¡mdings and decimation of purpo..'. /inch begin, as follow*; (Section ¡’A, , A he unrest riel ed garnishment "i'i.oMpen ■■•Uion due for persona! services en, ourar..”, die mm.mg ot predatory extension’. wi emuit . . ( fhe rest of the section ■ad.'.-.Mo iho (’■ .ngie-s acted with regard '.m ¡-b n- ,i!t'jsi:tt; (.onuneree but also ■-Ad. , a, n.iiionai unilbimity of bank■ag v law’. dm- extending the icaeh of the eiu>. iw* n so Ml employment including í-iVíV ío>.;¡! employ eg’.).

.vu.'ife; is lii”. \ pi ess command directed to all courts as appearing in Section 1673 (c): “No court of the United States or any State may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.”

u i. ‘”hnb;.¡f p.)vr*«nt in the Form is more F’-n i1'- pi.'remptr»r/ ‘ otrmtanr] it) the Rule a!' m !-•> t< ■ t!ie rii n* of {jdymnni Of the exempt

¡ • /í Ruit. ui.! (t ¡ r:U-rr, broadly to > -rtf! r>-/ l i/v exenu-t íit,*n .ittaohment'' .« ‘i|.pl«eti) »ina does nrt m terms conflict * iVdfi.jl

•. h’¡ vj, that plomuff's counsel in this .. . *.»tlv uJVdfn of the Con«jrHSSiona! enact-v ucc-ht.-d during oral argument, but was ■s / -1V v‘ Uiinself of tb.e prooeC'S in use whether r '< i? if.ri'-t wirb n^ficnal policy.

(It is this section which moves this court to act now rather than to follow the more modest course of awaiting advice from those responsible for considering the application of the Rules and supporting Forms to new problems as they are raised, even in the absence of an appearance by the defendant.)

In this Commonwealth there has been no discussion of the issue in published decisions and practically no treatment in the law reviews with the exception of Moran, Relief for the Wage Earner: Regulation of Garnishment Under Title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Boston College Industrial and Commercial L. Rev. November, 1970, p. 10 let passim. (The author was at that time Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, the official charged with enforcement. See Section 1676.)

Other discussion may be found in Am. Jur. 2nd, Section 164, and 14 ALR Fed. 447-457.

It is important to note that under some hypothetical situations the Commonwealth restrictions may be more favorable to the wage earner than those enacted by Congress. In such an eventuality, the State limitation would apply, 15 USCS, Section 1677. See State Nat. Bank v. Fryman, 272 N.E. 2nd 217 (1971). Given the refined calculations necessary to determine whether Federal or State standards shall control in a given case, it is difficult to understand how the putative trustee is to make the determination. It seems to the undersigned, in the light of the strong public policy involved, that the court process must on its face clearly define the exemptions to which the debtor is entitled. The present Form proposed to be used by the plaintiff (printed, it must be acknowledged by the court itself) simply fails to embody in any intelligible .form the interplay of the respective Federal and State policies.

In order to give the plaintiff an opportunity to seek further review its motion is denied, by reason of the Court’s ruling that the existing process is unlawful. In this Court’s view this order is a final disposition of this case to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to claim a report and seek review in the Appellate Division or such other Court as it deems appropriate.

Lawrence D. Shubow Justice