Site /
Charging Orders And Debtor Exemptions
Site.TopicsExemption History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to output
Deleted lines 43-51:
U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
# [[2016ArizonaAlexander|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2016-arizona-alexander-charging-order.html
----
In re Holt, Bk.D.S.C. No. 13-02506-dd (Sept. 12, 2013).
# [[2013SouthCarolinaHolt|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2013-south-carolina-holt-charging-order.html
----
In re Singh, Case No. 11-15433 (N.D.Ohio, Sept. 19, 2012).
# [[2012OhioSingh|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2012-ohio-singh-charging-order.html
Changed line 17 from:
* If the debtor is receiving some compensation for services other than a distribution, such as a salary or wages, then the FWGL applies and the creditor should be limited to 25% of the debtor's net disposable income.
to:
* If the debtor is receiving some compensation for services other than a distribution, such as a salary or wages, then the FWGL applies and the creditor should be limited to 25% of the debtor's net disposable income. Note, however, that bonuses are not protected by the FWGL.
Changed lines 13-23 from:
An unsettled issue is whether a D/M may assert the Federal Wage Garnishment Law, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671, et seq., should apply to limit the charging order to 25% of the D/M's net disposable income, where the D/M can demonstrate that the distribution, or a part of the distribution, derives from the D/M's labors. For an analogous situation, see [[2016ArizonaAlexander| U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).]]
to:
An unsettled issue is whether a D/M may assert the Federal Wage Garnishment Law ("FWGL"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671, et seq., should apply to limit the charging order to 25% of the D/M's net disposable income, where the D/M can demonstrate that the distribution, or a part of the distribution, derives from the D/M's labors. For an analogous situation, see [[2016ArizonaAlexander| U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).]]
In the humble opinion of your author, the way this should shake out is as follows:
* If the debtor is receiving some compensation for services other than a distribution, such as a salary or wages, then the FWGL applies and the creditor should be limited to 25% of the debtor's net disposable income.
* If the debtor is receiving distributions from the LLC, then the court should examine further to see whether the distributions derive from the debtor's labors ("active income") or not ("passive income"), but which test is different from the tax test.
** To the extent that part or all of a distribution derives directly from the debtor's own labor, then the FWGL should apply and the creditor should be limited to 25% of the debtor's net disposable income.
** Otherwise, the distribution should not be subject to the FWGL and 100% of the distribution should be available to the creditor through the charging order lien, subject to any other exemptions that might apply.
In the humble opinion of your author, the way this should shake out is as follows:
* If the debtor is receiving some compensation for services other than a distribution, such as a salary or wages, then the FWGL applies and the creditor should be limited to 25% of the debtor's net disposable income.
* If the debtor is receiving distributions from the LLC, then the court should examine further to see whether the distributions derive from the debtor's labors ("active income") or not ("passive income"), but which test is different from the tax test.
** To the extent that part or all of a distribution derives directly from the debtor's own labor, then the FWGL should apply and the creditor should be limited to 25% of the debtor's net disposable income.
** Otherwise, the distribution should not be subject to the FWGL and 100% of the distribution should be available to the creditor through the charging order lien, subject to any other exemptions that might apply.
Changed lines 13-14 from:
An unsettled issue is whether a D/M may assert the Federal Wage Garnishment Law, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671, et seq., should apply to limit the charging order to 25% of the D/M's net disposable income, where the D/M can demonstrate that the distribution, or a part of the distribution, derives from the D/M's labors. For an analogous situation, see U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
to:
An unsettled issue is whether a D/M may assert the Federal Wage Garnishment Law, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671, et seq., should apply to limit the charging order to 25% of the D/M's net disposable income, where the D/M can demonstrate that the distribution, or a part of the distribution, derives from the D/M's labors. For an analogous situation, see [[2016ArizonaAlexander| U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).]]
Added lines 21-22:
** [[2019IowaRetterath | +]]
Changed lines 25-26 from:
** U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
to:
** [[2016ArizonaAlexander|+]]
Changed lines 34-37 from:
to:
2016.05.22 … LLC Distributions Arising From The Debtor's Labors Subject To 25% Earnings Exemption In Alexander
U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
# [[2016ArizonaAlexander|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2016-arizona-alexander-charging-order.html
----
U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
# [[2016ArizonaAlexander|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2016-arizona-alexander-charging-order.html
----
Changed lines 39-40 from:
to:
# [[2013SouthCarolinaHolt|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2013-south-carolina-holt-charging-order.html
----
In re Singh, Case No. 11-15433 (N.D.Ohio, Sept. 19, 2012).
# [[2012OhioSingh|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2012-ohio-singh-charging-order.html
----
In re Singh, Case No. 11-15433 (N.D.Ohio, Sept. 19, 2012).
# [[2012OhioSingh|+]] https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2012-ohio-singh-charging-order.html
Changed lines 16-19 from:
!!EXEMPTION OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.Exemption list=normal:)
(:pagelist link=Category
to:
!!!EXEMPTION ARTICLES
* [[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2019/04/27/iowa-supreme-court-serves-up-a-shoddy-charging-order-opinion-in-retterath/ | 2019.04.27]] ... Iowa Supreme Court Serves Up A Shoddy Charging Order Opinion In Retterath
* [[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadkisson/2016/05/22/llc-distributions-arising-from-the-debtors-labors-subject-to-the-25-earnings-exemption-in-campbell/ | 2016.05.22]] … LLC Distributions Arising From The Debtor's Labors Subject To 25% Earnings Exemption In Alexander
** U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
Changed lines 26-31 from:
to:
!!!EXEMPTION OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.Exemption list=normal fmt=title:)
----
Changed line 6 from:
[[!Topic]] Exemption
to:
[[!Topic]] Exemption [-TopicsExemption-]
Changed line 6 from:
[[!topic]] [[!exemption]]
to:
[[!Topic]] Exemption
Changed line 18 from:
(:pagelist link=Category.exemption list=normal:)
to:
(:pagelist link=Category.Exemption list=normal:)
Changed lines 1-4 from:
(:title TEXT:)
(:Summary:TEXT:)
(:descriptionTEXT:)
(:keywords charging order,TEXT:)
(:Summary:
(:description
(:keywords charging order,
to:
(:title Charging Orders And Debtor Exemptions:)
(:Summary: Charging Orders And Debtor Exemptions:)
(:description Charging Orders And Debtor Exemptions:)
(:keywords charging order, exemption:)
(:Summary: Charging Orders And Debtor Exemptions:)
(:description Charging Orders And Debtor Exemptions:)
(:keywords charging order, exemption:)
Changed line 6 from:
[[!topic]] [[!TEXT]]
to:
[[!topic]] [[!exemption]]
Changed lines 9-14 from:
to:
While § 503(g) provides that the D/M may take advantage of any exemption, there is no guidance on how or when the D/M may assert the exemption. This should be corrected; presumably, the D/M must assert or lose the exemption at the hearing on the charging order.
Note that most judgment enforcement remedies that take something from the debtor are accompanied by statutory warnings that the debtor must assert any exemption within X days or lose the exemption.
An unsettled issue is whether a D/M may assert the Federal Wage Garnishment Law, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671, et seq., should apply to limit the charging order to 25% of the D/M's net disposable income, where the D/M can demonstrate that the distribution, or a part of the distribution, derives from the D/M's labors. For an analogous situation, see U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
Note that most judgment enforcement remedies that take something from the debtor are accompanied by statutory warnings that the debtor must assert any exemption within X days or lose the exemption.
An unsettled issue is whether a D/M may assert the Federal Wage Garnishment Law, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671, et seq., should apply to limit the charging order to 25% of the D/M's net disposable income, where the D/M can demonstrate that the distribution, or a part of the distribution, derives from the D/M's labors. For an analogous situation, see U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
Changed lines 18-19 from:
(:pagelist link=Category.TEXT list=normal:)
to:
(:pagelist link=Category.exemption list=normal:)
Changed lines 21-25 from:
to:
U.S. v. Alexander, 2016 WL 2893406 (D.Ariz., 2016).
In re Holt, Bk.D.S.C. No. 13-02506-dd (Sept. 12, 2013).
In re Singh, Case No. 11-15433 (N.D.Ohio, Sept. 19, 2012).
In re Holt, Bk.D.S.C. No. 13-02506-dd (Sept. 12, 2013).
In re Singh, Case No. 11-15433 (N.D.Ohio, Sept. 19, 2012).
Changed line 6 from:
[[!topic]]
to:
[[!topic]] [[!TEXT]]
Changed lines 8-16 from:
[[<<]]
to:
[[<<]]
TEXT
----
!!TEXT OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.TEXT list=normal:)
----
TEXT
TEXT
----
!!TEXT OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.TEXT list=normal:)
----
TEXT
Added lines 1-8:
(:title TEXT:)
(:Summary: TEXT:)
(:description TEXT:)
(:keywords charging order, TEXT:)
(:linebreaks:)
[[!topic]]
[[<<]]
[[<<]]
(:Summary: TEXT:)
(:description TEXT:)
(:keywords charging order, TEXT:)
(:linebreaks:)
[[!topic]]
[[<<]]
[[<<]]