I file wage garnishments all the time on my Tennessee judgments.
If you know where a defendant works, Tennessee law allows a judgment creditor to garnish the debtor’s wages for payment toward the judgment. (See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-7-101). Without boring you with the details (see this earlier post instead), an employer then is required to pay about 25% of the employee’s wages to the Court Clerk, who then holds the wages and disburses them to the creditor.
In the event the employer fails to respond to the garnishment, the creditor can seek a judgment against the employer itself for the full amount of the judgment (not just 25% of it), which, clearly, is an awesome way to actually get your money.
I’ve explained this process before: you get a “Conditional Judgment” against the employer and then you issue a Scire Facias, which requires the employer to come to Court and “show cause” why it shouldn’t be a “final” judgment.
This sounds great, but nine times out of ten, the employer shows up in response and files (finally) an answer. Under Tennessee case law, a late filed response is good enough to stop the process and avoid a “final” judgment being entered. Last week, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a great opinion in Emrick v Moseley (July 30, 2014), reviewing this entire process.
So, if a conditional judgment is considered a “wake up call” to prompt a response from an employer, then what do you do about the money that the employer should have paid to the Clerk? Two weeks ago, I had this exact case and argued that, under the existing case law, the cow was out of the barn and the employer’s only obligation is to comply with future obligations (i.e. withhold future wages).
I was wrong. That’s where the Emrick case is so good. Via dicta, the Emrick Court says that the employer has exposure under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-7-112 for any money that it should have paid in, if it had timely responded.
So, no, you can’t get a judgment for the full amount of the debtor’s judgment, but you can get a judgment for the garnishment amounts that should have been withheld.
This is good news for creditor attorneys, and, even though I was wrong on this issue in the past, I’m glad to have been wrong.