Can they Seize property?

[jacko]

Clarification on head of household. If you are single and will be renting, are you considered head of household?

They can garnish wages in Florida. Just depends on whether you're head of household or how much you make if you're not head of household.
Head of household is 100% exempt. If you're not head of household any amount up to $500 is exempt.

Can anyone else explain exactly what head of household means. I'm not married no children but my boyfriend does live here. He contributes about the same amount as me to expenses but I'm the one filing not him and house is in my name only (and I'm keeping it)

Never mind I just searched head of household no wonder I had no idea what it was I have no children or dependents

[junker]

Judgments are only good in Arizona for 5 years. They can renew the judgment after that, but from my friend's experience, they usually don't bother renewing a judgment after 5 years if they don't get anything in the first 5 years.

And having a judgment against me did not stop me from buying a car.

in california, and i think florida where the op is from. judgments are good for 10 years, and can be renewed..but as you say most dont renew...i have had several judgments over the years and no one has bothered to renew....

also you will NOT get a home refinanced with a judgment on your credit report unpaid...and i know of no major finance co that will finance a car with a judgment upaid on your credit report...

[seFlaDude]

If this debt is a joint debt it will be much harder to protect, If not then depending on who's debt it is and who's name the assets are titled in they might be protected, also if the vacant land is attached to your residence you can probably protect it with homestead exemption, If not they could take them and even if they only got half of there value at auction they are ahead of the game, Most likely once they have a judgement they will have you do a debtors exam ( I am currently doing one myself) to see what assets you have they can seize , Wage garnishment and financial accounts are there first targets for obvious reasons, but if those are protected as you say they may go after your vehicles and land

[tobefree]

SEFLGUY
How long after (in your case) did you receive the debtors exam? Would there be any way to find out if i have one coming? How much time do you have to return it? sorry for all the ?'s! I hope you dont mind.

also....The debt is in both our names/ as is the property we own..so no luck there

Thanks so much for your responses and knowledge!

[OHBOY]

Junker, yes its still the same -$1000 exempt for vehicles so they wouldnt get much from my car that to satisfy the $10K-i dont think it would be worth their time. They cant touch wages as that is exempt, and also the same for checking accounts, house is safe, but i do have a 1/2 acre lot-i guess they could put a lein on and i could get removed when i file-but that will be months away i guess thats why i am worried about my property and vehicles since they cant touch the house, wages, or checking account--thats all that is left....i assume also they could keep seizing until their $10K is satisfied? UGH! Florida SUCKS! I think i need to look into getting legal aid since my BK is a while off...Thanks SOO Much!

...don't understand why you think that they 'cant touch wages'... FL does have a limited exemption on wages for head of household, but that's it, anything above that is 'gone'....

also checking accounts are up for grabs, unless it's stricktly SS deposit without comingling of other funds , but beware..even a penny of added interest in an interest bearing account voids that exemption.

also, as HHM already pointed out: that lot sure is up for grabs.. not just a lien...I would consider it gone....

[tobefree]

OHBOY-
florida statute 222.11
Wages: 100% of head of family's paid and unpaid wages up to $500 per week for head of family (deposited into bank account for up to six months) [222.11

one income family, hubby is head of household makes less than $500 a week-rendering wages untouchable.. (ive done my research-and still am) LOL

as for the lot--i think you are right---unless i combine it with my homestead ASAP> then it will be protected. They are currently selling here for $3000 or less-so they may want it-idk? they have been very aggressive so far....

[GoingDown]

in california, and i think florida where the op is from. judgments are good for 10 years, and can be renewed..but as you say most dont renew...i have had several judgments over the years and no one has bothered to renew....

also you will NOT get a home refinanced with a judgment on your credit report unpaid...and i know of no major finance co that will finance a car with a judgment upaid on your credit report...

There are several of them in Arizona that will lend money to you even with a judgment on your credit report. They are local lenders.

We have tons of illegal aliens here, if they didn't lend to people with horrible credit, including judgments (mostly eviction judgments), they would cut out a huge amount of the business around here.

They put a device on your car that shuts it down if you miss a payment. And they have lo-jack on the car to find it if you refuse to pay.

[GoingDown]

OHBOY-
florida statute 222.11
Wages: 100% of head of family's paid and unpaid wages up to $500 per week for head of family (deposited into bank account for up to six months) [222.11

one income family, hubby is head of household makes less than $500 a week-rendering wages untouchable.. (ive done my research-and still am) LOL

as for the lot--i think you are right---unless i combine it with my homestead ASAP> then it will be protected. They are currently selling here for $3000 or less-so they may want it-idk? they have been very aggressive so far....

Yes, similar to Arizona's garnishment law. Very low income wage earners are exempt from garnishment in Arizona, too. I think it is the state minimum wage X some number (30?) per week. Anything below that is exempt from garnishment, but you have to file a form stating this once they start garnishment proceedings.

You don't have to be head of household in Arizona. Single people qualify as well.

[WhatMoney]

also checking accounts are up for grabs, unless it's strictly SS deposit without co-mingling of other funds , but beware..even a penny of added interest in an interest bearing account voids that exemption.

What exemption? Exempt funds are always exempt - they do not lose their exemption when co-mingled with non-exempt funds. What can happen is an account with mixed funds can be frozen, and the debtor will need to prove which funds are exempt through an exemption form and possible court hearing. However you will always get the exempt portion returned. You can pro-actively inform your bank that the account is only for the deposit of exempt funds as well - which may prevent the bank from honoring the illegal bank levy of exempt funds.

If the only non-exempt portion of an exempt account is the interest earned on the exempt funds, the interest is non-exempt. But this is often only a few cents per month. Is a judgment creditor going to spend money in court opposing an exemption request, when the only possible return is to be awarded a few cents in interest? Remember, the creditor attorney gets a copy of the exemption request and documentation before any hearing.

If an exempt deposit account earns interest, it is wise to reduce the account balance to less than $0.10 each month. Then the maximum in non-exempt funds would be $0.10 or the amount of actual interest earned that month, whichever is more. Oppose an exemption request for a dime? Creditors are not that stupid.

Some states already have limitations on accounts where any exempt funds are deposited, New York and California, for example.

This whole mess of creditors freezing and stealing exempt Social Security funds from checking or savings accounts will HOPEFULLY be resolved on a national basis later this year. The Obama administration is moving to make this a federal regulation that applies to all banks and credit unions, after all the whiny banks have made their opposition comments by mid June, 2010.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 15, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
HAILS RULE TO PROTECT SENIORS’ BANK ACCOUNTS
BOSTON – New rules proposed by Obama’s Treasury Department would prevent debt collectors from triggering the illegal seizure of Social Security funds from the bank accounts of tens of thousands of seniors.
“Once enacted, this regulation will stop banks from illegally freezing Social Security, SSI and veterans’ benefits to satisfy garnishment orders from debt collectors.” said Margot Saunders, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.

Existing law exempts Social Security, veterans and other federal benefits from being taken through court orders obtained by creditors and debt collectors. However, banks regularly freeze accounts that contain such funds and charge hefty overdraft, bounced check and garnishment fees to consumers.

“This is a critical protection for seniors and others who depend on federal benefits to pay for food, medicine and shelter,” Saunders said.
The proposed rules will require banks to identify bank accounts which in the past 60 days have had direct deposit of Social Security, veterans and other federal benefits. All of the federal benefits deposited during those 60 days will be protected from seizure, regardless of whether other, non-exempt funds have also been deposited or withdrawn from the account.

“The National Consumer Law Center applauds the Obama administration and Senators Max Baucus and Herb Kohl for finding a solution to a flaw in the banking system that has financially strangled vulnerable seniors and other recipients of Social Security and other federal benefits,” Saunders said.
The proposed rules were made public Wednesday and posted on-line at www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-08899_PI.pdf. Comments will be received by Treasury through mid June. Saunders urged citizens and organizations to file comments in support of those rules starting on April 19 at www.regulations.gov.

The National Consumer Law Center is a non-profit organization with 39 years of experience working on issues that affect low-income consumers. NCLC publishes legal manuals and consumer guides and works with and trains legal services, government and private attorneys, community groups and organizations representing low-income and elderly consumers. Support for NCLC's advocacy was provided in part by The Retirement Research Foundation.

[OHBOY]

[QUOTE=WhatMoney;404842]What exemption? Exempt funds are always exempt - they do not lose their exemption when co-mingled with non-exempt funds. What can happen is an account with mixed funds can be frozen, and the debtor will need to prove which funds are exempt through an exemption form and possible court hearing. However you will always get the exempt portion returned. You can pro-actively inform your bank that the account is only for the deposit of exempt funds as well - which may prevent the bank from honoring the illegal bank levy of exempt funds.)



The Social Security Administration has encouraged recipients to receive their benefits through direct deposit. But if benefits are co-mingled with other funds, the bank isn't responsible for differentiating between what can and cannot be garnished in the account. The Social Security Administration has limitations on garnishment, but its responsibility ends upon the payment of benefits.....hence an account can be up for 'grabs'.... and sure you can fight to get it back.....

(Additional Quote by 'What Money':Oppose an exemption request for a dime? Creditors are not that stupid.)


Actually...apparently they are that stupid..: there was indeed a lawsuit that ended up with SS monies in bank account not being protected because the ruling stated that because even if it was comingled with just one penny of interest from interest bearing account that SS was no longer protected from garnishment....

sooo...whatever......

[WhatMoney]

The Social Security Administration has encouraged recipients to receive their benefits through direct deposit. But if benefits are co-mingled with other funds, the bank isn't responsible for differentiating between what can and cannot be garnished in the account. The Social Security Administration has limitations on garnishment, but its responsibility ends upon the payment of benefits.....hence an account can be up for 'grabs'.... and sure you can fight to get it back.....

Federal and state exemption laws say that SS funds are exempt as long as they are traceable. The SSA has nothing to do with the exemption laws of the land. You can route your SSA funds through a dozen bank accounts and the money is still exempt if the paper trail is intact.

You also missed the part where banks in some states ARE now responsible for differentiating between exempt and non-exempt funds. And you ignored the upcoming Federal regulation I referenced, which will make all your claims obsolete.

(Additional Quote by 'What Money':Oppose an exemption request for a dime? Creditors are not that stupid.)

Actually...apparently they are that stupid..: there was indeed a lawsuit that ended up with SS monies in bank account not being protected because the ruling stated that because even if it was comingled with just one penny of interest from interest bearing account that SS was no longer protected from garnishment....
sooo...whatever......

Provide the case reference please. And not something from 1991 in Alabama that has been overruled in all states by more recent laws. Quite simply, the account may not be protected but the exempt funds in the account are always exempt and recoverable in all States under today's laws. At this point you are spreading misinformation - tolerable in the political forum, but not in this forum.

[OHBOY]

[QUOTE=WhatMoney;404927]

You also missed the part where banks in some states ARE now responsible for differentiating between exempt and non-exempt funds. And you ignored the upcoming Federal regulation I referenced, which will make all your claims obsolete.)



.....didn't miss a thing....original poster is located in FL where with a writ of garnishment it is still a possibility for a bank account that also contains SS to be cleaned out (if that even applied to the OP), and...as I pointed out previously to the OP, thereafter one would have to go through the process to fight to get it back, which of course is always an option if one has a tendency towards inviting problems/does not prefer to take preemptive measures....

...I would not suggest to walk in front of a moving vehicle just because I have the green light right of way, but...to each their own.

[WhatMoney]

also checking accounts are up for grabs, unless it's stricktly SS deposit without comingling of other funds , but beware..even a penny of added interest in an interest bearing account voids that exemption.

Your quote above is wrong. Banks in most states (including FL) can and will freeze and levy a SS deposit account when there is NO co-mingling of funds. So it makes no difference whether you have $0.01 in interest in your account or not - if the bank's policy is to obey all garnishment orders, they freeze the funds and the debtor must file an exemption to get the funds released.

The only advantage to keeping an exempt-only SS deposit account is that it makes the evidence you present to the court and the bank with your exemption request easier to follow. You are misusing the word exemption to mean an exempt account (there is no such thing in most states) instead of exempt funds, which remain exempt as long as they are traceable.

I have been watching and writing about this problem that victimize Seniors for several years. I suggest you read the latest proposal to better understand the problem the Treasury Dept is finally trying to rectify.

[landofpoor]

Far as the ss being exempted I had asked the bank about that once it was deposited.I got nervous when I was told if a seizure theyd have no choice the funds would be frozen.I cured the problem I took my funds out and a home safe.I dont need the headaches or cost that would go along to get my money back. BTW I did tell them when opened the acct it was only for SS deposits and it was not comingled. Better safe then sorry in my eyes

[seFlaDude]

tobefree
Sorry for the delayed response, 2-3 weeks after the final judgement was entered I received the debtor exam and I have 45 days to return to plantiff's attorney, Not sure how you would find out if you have one coming but most likely you will, in order for them to find any asset's they can attach, with the debt in both names it makes protecting much more difficult, as you have stated you have head of household for wages and that covers up to 6 mos worth of wages in an account, ( to my best understanding) but comingling money can create issues, I opened seperate accounts as to avoid this as well as to have Tenants by the Entirety protection as might debt is mine alone and not my wifes, will not help on joint debt ( Believe me I'm no expert but more than willing to share my limited knowledge and personal experience) Hope this helps