Cha-ching, mark one for the underdogs...

[dipper]

Soc,

My dh had garnished his ex's wages for a debt she owes him and was unwilling to pay.  The garnishment had to be served to the store she manages as the headquarters is out of state.

Using your wisdom, dh sent the company in writing with a copy of the garnishment notice.  He actually did this three times with a certified letter one time.

Nothing was paid.  Again, using your wisdom we sent the show cause to the registered agent for the company.

When the show cause came up - no one showed.  So, the judge ordered for the owners arrest and presence at court today.

The lawyer for the company showed up today -and  he instructed the judge that the manager of the store served (dh's ex) never sent the garnishment notice.  DH spoke up and said he did though.  The lawyer then admitted that yes, dh had sent the garnishment through mail service.

The judge then told the lawyer that since the ex was a representative of their store and did receive the summons, and since they received copies through dh - they owed dh all the money that should have come out of the ex's checks for that period.  

They now have 30 days to calculate this amount and forward to dh or dh takes them back to court.  Being that it would probably be less costly for them to simply pay dh than to send a lawyer down again and fight the judge over this...........we are hoping they will do as told.

And on another note, the garnishment with her newest employer - her relatives was due today and they paid.........

AT last, dh feels like he accomplished something.....and if only temporarily, there is the feel of sweet success.

Thank you for all the wisdom you have shared with us Soc - it was our only hope!

:)

[socrateaser]

Please scan a copy of the order and send to [email protected]. I want it for my memorabilia collection.

Good work!

[dipper]

Soc,

Under a show cause, judge ordered company to pay 'me' the money they should have taken out of bm's checks.  The judge said as she was their representative at the time and received the summons, they were served.

Yesterday, the VP called and said the President of the company says they are not liable and they will fight it.  Said that 'I' would have a better chance getting the money owed out of bm.....

It was a really bad day for us.........

[socrateaser]

>Soc,
>
>Under a show cause, judge ordered company to pay 'me' the
>money they should have taken out of bm's checks.  The judge
>said as she was their representative at the time and received
>the summons, they were served.
>
>Yesterday, the VP called and said the President of the company
>says they are not liable and they will fight it.  Said that
>'I' would have a better chance getting the money owed out of
>bm.....
>
>It was a really bad day for us.........

LOL. Not really.  You are always so negative.

Just saying that they will fight is not the same as actually fighting. Your opponent has a certain amount of time to appeal or move for reconsideration and after that, the order to pay is "in stone," and failure to pay is contempt of court. Eventually, you can force the company to appear and identify its assets/bank accounts, etc. If they refuse to do this, you can have the company president jailed until he does identify the assets.

Send a letter to opposing counsel stating that you have received a call from X representing Y corp on ??/??/??, and restate the text of the conversation. Then say, that unless you hear otherwise from counsel, that you will assume that Y corp's position will not change, and that as soon as the time for moving to reconsider or taking an appeal has passed, that you will move for another hearing to force Y corp to identify its assets so that you can execute against them.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind, nevertheless.