Wal-Mart money card-a way to dodge a judgement?

[lotsahats]

Here is another way to avoid a garnishment if you have a spouse and/or kids: Have your spouse establish a child support / spousal support order against you that takes at least 25% of your income via wage order. With your wages already being garnished by 25% to support your spouse and children, creditors cannot touch it.

Who's to say that with all this collection pressure weighing down on you that you won't go out and drink up your whole paycheck? If you do that, your kids might go hungry, have to go to school bare-footed and such. We, as a society, can't have that. I'd say a support order is most definitely called for.

Did you mean ex-spouse? Or can a married person make a spousal support order?

[MSbklawyer]

Did you mean ex-spouse? Or can a married person make a spousal support order?

Yes, a married person CAN get a spousal support / child support order -- at least in Mississippi they can. Usually it is because a spouse has a gambling or drinking disorder and the family is about to become destitute because of it because the spouse is gambling away / drinking up the rent money.

[Diesel73L]

Yes, a married person CAN get a spousal support / child support order -- at least in Mississippi they can. Usually it is because a spouse has a gambling or drinking disorder and the family is about to become destitute because of it because the spouse is gambling away / drinking up the rent money.

That IS brilliant-I guess the caveat is that a judge must sign off on the support order and it probably varies from judge to judge whether or not they would based on the circumstances. I suppose one could make up a wild Jerry Springer-esque story and use that as the grounds for requesting the order, but you could theoretically get turned down right?

[HHM]

As creative as all this is, it is an awful lot of trouble to go through when you can file BK and simply eliminate the debt

[tobee43]

This is, hands-down, one of the ten most brilliant concepts I've ever come across in any walk of life. Downright ingenious. BRAVO!

Good luck to us all.

i'm double that! magnificent !

[MSbklawyer]

As creative as all this is, it is an awful lot of trouble to go through when you can file BK and simply eliminate the debt

But this works with non-dischargeable debts too. And will buy time for people to save up money to file bk.

[MSbklawyer]

That IS brilliant-I guess the caveat is that a judge must sign off on the support order and it probably varies from judge to judge whether or not they would based on the circumstances. I suppose one could make up a wild Jerry Springer-esque story and use that as the grounds for requesting the order, but you could theoretically get turned down right?

In most states you can have them done administratively through the Department of Welfare / Department of Human Services / Child Support Offices, Etc. If the target spouse doesn't contest it, it's pretty much a done deal.

[HHM]

But this works with non-dischargeable debts too. And will buy time for people to save up money to file bk.

True enough...but I wonder...this is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but in practice????

I suppose most regular consumer creditors wouldn't push the issue, the creditors would issue garnishment order, the payroll department would send the reply informing them of existing garnishment, and that would be that, creditors goes away quietly and starts looking for bank accounts.

But, I question whether a bankruptcy trustee wouldn't challenge the propriety of it. Especially in a chapter 13 scenario, or the US Trustee challenge the tactic if used to try to qualify the debtor for chapter 7...debtor and spouse set up a, ostensibly, voluntary child support order and garnishment of debtors pay. Debtor files chapter 13 BK, but the spouse is a non-filing spouse, she receives the garnished funds. I can't imagine a BK trustee would just roll over on that one, I would think there would need to be an unassailable good faith basis for the child support order.

[MSbklawyer]

No, I don't think it work work for purposes of qualifying a debtor for 7. The means test looks at the 'household' income. If the money were coming out of one spouses pocket and going into the other spouses pocket and they were in the same household, the whole thing would be a wash.

But if a father's monetary support of his wife and children is coming out of his wages by wage order instead of in the traditional manner of just giving the money directly, I can't see how a creditor could be heard to complain. The wife and children have just as much if not more of a right to use the law to see to it that they receive the support of their husband/father as a creditor has to try to get its money. If the wife/children get in line ahead of the creditor and take what is due them and thereby preclude the creditor from collecting, that's just the creditor's hard luck.

[karm43]

It also depends if you own a house they will put a lien on it. I also heard they could find who you bank with by calling electric company etc. Its a short term fix anyway!

[shark66]

It also depends if you own a house they will put a lien on it.

Well, in your own state (PA) the house has to be in the same name as the debt for a creditor to put a lien on it...if the debt is yours, the house owned by your spouse and yourself is off limits...and there are more states that have this provision...

I also heard they could find who you bank with by calling electric company etc.

Never heard of that one and I very much doubt that it's true. They've got easier ways of finding out where one banks than that...

Its a short term fix anyway!

Why? This can go on as long as one is both employed and married...

Good luck to us all.

[Diesel73L]

It's an interesting concept that would be worth trying for the fun of beating the creditors at their own game. Not exactly a permanent solution, but maybe? Starting with the premise of this thread, one could theoretically set up the garnishment in order to guard against the garnishment of wages and then have the remaining money direct deposited to a reloadable debit card, which, as HHM points out is difficult and in some cases impossible to garnish. Or, one could find some other safe repository for the money in a variety of ways. Shark addressed the lien issue which makes sense. The only remaining obstacle I see is the fact that without a BK filing at some point, there is no way you can rebuild your credit-or am I wrong about that?

[karm43]

I meant short term as in giving them some time, until they decide what to do. I did read that somewhere about electric co. and they call banks in your area. Didn't know that about the house thanks for that info.

[SWConsultant]

Here is another way to avoid a garnishment if you have a spouse and/or kids: Have your spouse establish a child support / spousal support order against you that takes at least 25% of your income via wage order. With your wages already being garnished by 25% to support your spouse and children, creditors cannot touch it.

Who's to say that with all this collection pressure weighing down on you that you won't go out and drink up your whole paycheck? If you do that, your kids might go hungry, have to go to school bare-footed and such. We, as a society, can't have that. I'd say a support order is most definitely called for.

Wow! this is a good idea - Thanks for the tip

[SweetGeorgia]

MSbklawyer, you are brilliant and elegantly devious! I believe that caring for one's family is the higher moral imperative, and that would be a great way to achieve it.

I worked for a company in Louisiana many years ago. They had a respected and well-paid employee who had a bad gambling problem. They would hold his paycheck for his wife, who would come get it when he was out of town. This was just a tacit agreement, rather than anything formal. Probably illegal, but it worked out for everyone (he saved face, the wife fed the kids, the employer kept the employee). The casino still got his pocket money, but not the rent.