(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment shall not exceed the lesser of the following amounts:
(a) Twenty-five percent of his or her disposable earnings for that week;
(b) The amount by which his or her disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1) in effect at the time earnings are payable; or
(c) Fifteen percent of his or her disposable earnings for that week, if the individual is a head of a family.
(2) The restrictions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in the case of:
(a) Any order of any court for the support of any persons;
(b) Any order of any court of bankruptcy under Chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act; or
(c) Any debt due for any state or federal tax.
(3) No court shall make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section. The exemptions allowed in this section shall be granted to any person so entitled without any further proceedings.
(4) For the purposes of this section:
(a) Earnings shall mean compensation paid or payable by an employer to an employee for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program;
(b) Disposable earnings shall mean that part of the earnings of any individual remaining after the deduction from those earnings of any amounts required by law to be withheld;
(c) Garnishment shall mean any legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of any individual are required to be withheld for payment of any debt; and
(d) Head of a family shall mean an individual who actually supports and maintains one or more individuals who are closely connected with him or her by blood relationship, relationship by marriage, by adoption, or by guardianship, and whose right to exercise family control and provide for the dependent individuals is based upon some moral or legal obligation.
(5) Every assignment, sale, transfer, pledge, or mortgage of the wages or salary of an individual which is exempted by this section, to the extent of the exemption provided by this section, shall be void and unenforceable by any process of law.
(6) No employer shall discharge any employee by reason of the fact that his or her earnings have been subjected to garnishment for any one indebtedness.
(7) In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Commissioner of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Spaghetti Ltd. P'ship v. Wolfe, 647 N.W.2d 615 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 13× “31, a figure apparently reached after applying the wage exemption of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (l)(a) (Reissue 1995).”
Ferry v. Ferry, 271 N.W.2d 450 (Neb. 1978).
· cites it 20× “The plaintiff has cross-appealed and makes the claim that section 25-1558, R. R. S. 1943, is unconstitutional.”
Friedman v. Friedman, 290 Neb. 973 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 4× “The affidavit set forth that Friedman was not the head of a family for purposes of the percentage of disposable earnings subject to garnishment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 2008).”
Kropf v. Kropf, 538 N.W.2d 496 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 8× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The appellant assigns two errors: (1) The district court erred *615 in not limiting the amount garnished from his Social Security benefits to 15 percent as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 1989), and (2) the district court erred in overruling…”
Ybarra v. Ybarra, 28 Neb. Ct. App. 216 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “2d 496 (1995), wherein the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the garnishment limits of 15 percent or 25 percent set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (1) (Reissue 2016) did not apply because the alimony order in that case was an order - 222 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance…”
Matter of Welborne, 63 B.R. 23 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The provisions of this section shall not, in any manner, apply to the exemption of wages, that subject being fully provided for by section 25-1558. This exemption is basically a “wildcard” exemption, and the only apparent limitation on the nature of the personalty of the debtor…”
Scott Ryan Longnecker & Heather Renee Longnecker (Bankr. D. Neb. 2019).
· cites it 15× “They claim the majority of the “partially vested” value exempt as earnings under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (4)(a), and the balance under the personal property exemption of Neb.”
Arl Credit Servs., Inc. v. Piper, 736 N.W.2d 771 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Piper stated that she was the parent of two children, that she was the head of the household as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Cum. Supp. 2006), and that she was claiming the exemptions provided in § 25-1552 and Neb.”
LincOne Fed. Credit Union v. Moore (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 9× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 2016), which governs wage garnishments, provides in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment…”
Marion F. Pruss v. Richard Butler (8th Cir. BAP 1999).
· cites it 17× “The Debtor claimed the accounts receivable exempt under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 which limits garnishment on earnings from personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, or otherwise.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(1) — 1 case
LincOne Fed. Credit Union v. Moore (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 2016), which governs wage garnishments, provides in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(1)(a) — 1 case
Friedman v. Friedman, 290 Neb. 973 (Neb. 2015).
“The affidavit set forth that Friedman was not the head of a family for purposes of the percentage of disposable earnings subject to garnishment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 2008).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(1)(c) — 1 case
Friedman v. Friedman, 290 Neb. 973 (Neb. 2015).
“The affidavit set forth that Friedman was not the head of a family for purposes of the percentage of disposable earnings subject to garnishment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 2008).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(2)(a) — 1 case
Kropf v. Kropf, 538 N.W.2d 496 (Neb. 1995).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The appellant assigns two errors: (1) The district court erred *615 in not limiting the amount garnished from his Social Security benefits to 15 percent as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 1989), and (2) the district court erred in overruling…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(3) — 1 case
LincOne Fed. Credit Union v. Moore (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 2016), which governs wage garnishments, provides in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(a) — 1 case
Scott Ryan Longnecker & Heather Renee Longnecker (Bankr. D. Neb. 2019).
“They claim the majority of the “partially vested” value exempt as earnings under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (4)(a), and the balance under the personal property exemption of Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(l)(a) — 1 case
Spaghetti Ltd. P'ship v. Wolfe, 647 N.W.2d 615 (Neb. 2002).
“31, a figure apparently reached after applying the wage exemption of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (l)(a) (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(l)(c) — 2 cases
Kropf v. Kropf, 538 N.W.2d 496 (Neb. 1995).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The appellant assigns two errors: (1) The district court erred *615 in not limiting the amount garnished from his Social Security benefits to 15 percent as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558 (Reissue 1989), and (2) the district court erred in overruling…”
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.