U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 41— CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— RESTRICTIONS ON GARNISHMENT

15 U.S.C. § 1673

Restriction on garnishment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Maximum allowable garnishmentExcept as provided in subsection (b) and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206(a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable,whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).(b) Exceptions(1) The restrictions of subsection (a) do not apply in the case of(A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.(B) any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11.(C) any debt due for any State or Federal tax.(2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed—(A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; and(B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week;except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited

No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title III, § 303, May 29, 1968, 82 Stat. 163; Pub. L. 95–30, title V, § 501(e)(1)–(3), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 161, 162; Pub. L. 95–598, title III, § 312(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2676.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1978—Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 95–598 substituted “court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11” for “court of bankruptcy under chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act”.

1977—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–30, § 501(e)(1), (2), designated existing provisions as par. (1) and existing pars. (1), (2), and (3) as subpars. (A), (B), and (C) thereof, substituted “for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review” for “of any court for the support of any person” in subpar. (A) as so redesignated, and added par. (2).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 95–30, § 501(e)(3), inserted “, and no State (or officer or agency thereof),” after “or any State”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–598 effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 402(a) of Pub. L. 95–598, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Effective Date of 1977 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–30, title V, § 501(e)(5), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 162, provided that: “The amendments made by this subsection [amending this section and section 1675 of this title] shall take effect on the first day of the first calendar month which begins after the date of enactment of this Act [May 23, 1977].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 364 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Lawrence v. Jahn (In Re Lawrence), 219 B.R. 786 (E.D. Tenn. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lawrence v. Jahn (In Re Lawrence), 219 B.R. 786 (E.D. Tenn. 1998). · cites it 17× “15 U.S.C. § 1673 (e). The CCPA rendered the then-existing Tennessee garnishment laws obsolete.”
Follette v. Vitanza, 658 F. Supp. 492 (N.D.N.Y. 1987). · cites it 16× “§ 1983 (1982), contending that defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived plaintiffs of wages which are exempt from garnishment by § 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (1982), thereby denying them “rights, privileges, or…”
In re Foster, 556 B.R. 233 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2016). · cites it 12× “Virginia’s “wage exemption” statute was amended solely in order to comply with the CCPA’s mandatory limitations on wage garnishments; it does so by mirroring the language of 15 U.S.C. § 1673 . The conclusion that the legislature did not further intend to prevent the application…”
United States v. Clayton, 613 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “Clayton argued that the government is precluded from garnishing more than twenty-five percent of his earnings pursuant to § 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”), 15 U.”
In Re O'Neil, 992 A.2d 672 (N.H. 2010). · cites it 9× “2009); 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (b) (2006). In January 2008, the payroll administrator for DTI began to garnish only the amount it could lawfully garnish.”
Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 91 F. Supp. 3d 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 3× “§ 5219a; the Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”), specifically, (3) the restrictions on garnishment contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1673 , and (4) the equal credit opportunity provisions in 15 U.”
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979). · cites it 2× “Companion measures both established procedures to make garnishment more efficient, and amended § 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1673 (b), to pre-empt state law by limiting garnishments to less than 65% of the remuneration received for employment,…”
Catherine Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 1673 (a). 8 Examples of exemptions include the homestead and specified maxi- mum dollar amounts for certain assets (motor vehicles, furniture, etc.”
Bailey v. Carter, 15 F. App'x 245 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “As part of their Fourteenth Amendment claim, the inmates alleged that the statute and rule violate due process by infringing upon the rights created by Ohio’s nondelegation doctrine, Ohio Rev.”
Donovan v. Hamilton Cnty. Mun. Court, 580 F. Supp. 554 (S.D. Ohio 1984). · cites it 12× “86 available for garnishment under the twenty-five percent cap set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (a). USLC challenged GM’s response and on November 19, 1982 the Hamilton County Municipal Court referee filed a report recommending that GM pay into the Court each pay period twenty-five…”
Sheils v. Bucks Cnty. Dom. Relations Section, 921 F. Supp. 2d 396 (E.D. Pa. 2013). · cites it 3× “The January 17 Order Resolving DRS’s First Motion to Dismiss Construing DRS’s motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds as a facial jurisdictional challenge, January 17 Order ¶ g, we held in that Order that all of Sheils’s § 1983 claims against DRS (Counts I…”
Surender Malhan v. Sec'y United States Depart, 938 F.3d 453 (3rd Cir. 2019). “• Count 6 alleges that the garnishment of Malhan’s wages violates the CSEA and § 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673 . See App. 55–64. The family court’s garnishment order was in place until March 2018.”
Show all 364 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 1673(a) — 4 cases
Hodgson v. Hamilton Mun. Court, 349 F. Supp. 1125 (S.D. Ohio 1972).
Butler v. Butler, 277 S.E.2d 180 (Va. 1981).
Cabello v. Bureau Of Prisons (W.D. Tex. 2023).
Capital One Bank (usa) N.A. v. Sullivan, 2015 OK CIV APP 25 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b) — 2 cases
Ctr. for Gastrointestinal Med., Inc. v. Willitts, 623 A.2d 752 (N.H. 1993).
Kimberly J. Smith v. Gregory A. Smith (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b)(2) — 1 case
Spone, K. v. Spone, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).
— 15 U.S.C. § 1673(c) — 1 case
In Re: Lori J. Jordan v. Stephen Earl Whitted (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
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.