
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 26, 1995                   TAG: 9504260095
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: C-3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

GARNISHMENTS STRUCK DOWN

In a decision that could affect hundreds of people whose debts have been deducted from their paychecks, a Roanoke judge has dismissed four wage garnishments because creditors did not complete the required paperwork.

``The effect is that virtually every outstanding garnishment in the Roanoke courts is not valid, and they should all be struck,'' said Henry Woodward of the Legal Aid Society of the Roanoke Valley.

Woodward, who represented four people who recently had garnishments issued against them, had the cases dismissed by challenging a policy in the Roanoke General District Court Clerk's Office.

Woodward said the clerk's office - in an effort to reduce paperwork - did not require creditors to file a ``suggestion,'' a court form that is required by state law to start the garnishment process.

The suggestion is one of two nearly identical forms that must be filed before a garnishment is issued.

``We know that this is a very technical kind of requirement,'' Woodward said. ``But it is also absolutely clear that people can only get a garnishment by following the statute; and if you don't follow the statute, the court has no business issuing a garnishment.''

General District Judge Julian Raney agreed in a decision this month, dismissing four garnishments that had been filed against Woodward's clients for money they owed on loans or medical bills.

Raney wrote that ``since the procedure at issue was instituted for the convenience of the clerk's office," he would not require the creditors to pay an extra filing fee when they seek the garnishments a second time.

Court officials said a decision was made several years ago not to require the filing of suggestions, because the forms were thought to be an unnecessary and burdensome step in the garnishment process.

But Raney's decision means that suggestions must be filed.

Although the judge's ruling was limited to four cases, Woodward said it could affect anyone who has an outstanding garnishment that was issued in Roanoke General District Court without the filing of a suggestion.

In order for a company or bank to garnish wages, there first must be a judgment issued by a court that establishes how much money is owed. State law then requires the filing of a suggestion, and then a garnishment summons, before a hearing is held.

Once garnishment of wages is approved by a judge, the debtor's employer must deduct no more than one-fourth of the weekly wages over a 90-day period. In the four cases that Raney dismissed, money that had been withheld from the paychecks was returned to the employees.

The judge's decision does not mean that the creditors cannot collect the money they say is owed to them, however; instead, they must refile under the proper procedure.

Woodward said Raney's decision ``may be trivial to people with a lot [of money], but is so important to people with only a little.''

by CNB