Rep. Richard Hamm has introduced HB 1143 concerning garnishments which encourages judgment debtors to stiff their creditors by briefly leaving their employment before returning again. It provides that if a judgment creditor is garnishing a debtor’s wages with a particular employer and if the debtor leaves that employment and returns again, the judgment creditor must “obtain a new judgment against the judgment debtor” before the employer is required to resume garnishments.
First of all, aside from some arcane maneuvers that don’t apply here, once you get a judgment, there is no getting a new judgment. A cause of action is reduced to judgment. After that, the cause of action is gone and only the judgment remains. There is nothing to sue upon to get a new judgment. So, on its face, it looks like the judgment creditor can get a garnishment if the creditor gets a judgment on a different debt but can’t get a garnishment based on the old judgment. Perhaps what is intended is that the creditor has to go back to court to get a new order of garnishment. But that’s not what the bill language says (among other things, it’s a new judgment against the judgment debtor – not a new order against the garnishee defendant”)
Either way, it discourages satisfaction of debts that are due and owing as a matter of law, and it encourages gamesmanship by debtors. Do not recommend.
Dog, I agree that some gamesmanship could occur, but in today’s job market, quitting and getting promptly rehired might me no small task.
But you are right about the language requiring a creditor to get a new judgement. I would guess that the intent was to require the creditor to waste time and resources obtaining a new garnishment order.
But I recall you worked for the legislature drafting bills. How could a bill containing such an obvious error get past the bills drafters?