34 C.F.R. § 34.7
Consideration of objection to the rate or amount of withholding
(a) We consider objections to the rate or amount of withholding only if the objection rests on a claim that withholding at the proposed rate or amount would cause financial hardship to you and your dependents.
(b) We do not provide a hearing on an objection to the rate or amount of withholding if the rate or amount we propose to be withheld does not exceed the rate or amount agreed to under a repayment agreement reached within the preceding six months after a previous notice of proposed garnishment.
(c) We do not consider an objection to the rate or amount of withholding based on a claim that by virtue of 15 U.S.C. 1673, no amount of wages are available for withholding by the employer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2006–2018 · leading case: United States v. Ernest K. Bankas (7th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Ernest K. Bankas (7th Cir. 2018). “See 34 C.F.R. §§ 34.7 , 34.24 (describing hardship component and process of objecting to garnishment based on financial hardship).”
Bender v. Van Ru Credit Corp. (In re Bender), 338 B.R. 62 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2006). “34 C.F.R. § 34.7 (a). . In the actual garnishment context, the borrower bears the burden of proving financial hardship by a preponderance of the credible evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.