BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                AB 1775
                                                                Page  1

        ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
        AB 1775 (Wieckowski)
        As Amended April 17, 2012
        Majority vote 

         JUDICIARY           7-3                                         
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Feuer, Atkins, Dickinson, |     |                          |
        |     |Huber, Monning,           |     |                          |
        |     |Wieckowski,               |     |                          |
        |     |Bonnie Lowenthal          |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |Nays:|Wagner, Gorell, Jones     |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         SUMMARY  :  Increases the amount of a judgment debtor's weekly 
        earnings that are exempt from wage garnishment from 30 times the 
        federal minimum wage to 40 times the California minimum wage.  
        Specifically,  this bill  :

        1)Provides that the maximum amount of disposable earnings of a 
          judgment debtor for any work week that is subject to garnishment 
          shall not exceed the lesser of the following amounts:

           a)   Twenty-five percent of the individual's disposable earnings 
             for that week; or,

           b)   The amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for 
             that week exceed 40 times the state minimum hourly wage in 
             effect at the time the earnings are payable.

        2)Defines "disposable earnings" as the portion of an individual's 
          earnings that remains after deducting all amounts required to be 
          withheld by law.

        3)Specifies the multipliers to be used to determine the maximum 
          amounts of disposable earnings subject to garnishment that are 
          proportionally equivalent for pay periods of different intervals, 
          other than a weekly pay period, and requires the Judicial Council 
          to provide instructions on how to compute these amounts in the 
          Employer's Instructions document required under existing law.

         EXISTING LAW  :  








                                                                AB 1775
                                                                Page  2


        1)Provides that the amount of earnings of a judgment debtor exempt 
          from the levy of an earnings withholding order, except as 
          specified, shall be that amount that may not be withheld from the 
          judgment debtor's earnings under federal law in Section 1673(a) of 
          Title 15 of the United States Code (U.S.C.).



        2)Provides that the maximum part of the aggregate disposable 
          earnings of an individual for any work week which is subject to 
          garnishment may not exceed 25% of his or her disposable earnings 
          for that week, or the amount by which his or her disposable 
          earnings for that week exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly 
          wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable, whichever is 
          less.  

         FISCAL EFFECT  :  None
         
        COMMENTS  :  This bill, sponsored by the Western Center on Law and 
        Poverty, seeks to increase the so-called "garnishment floor" in 
        California-that is, to increase the minimum amount of a judgment 
        debtor's weekly earnings that are exempt from wage garnishment as a 
        matter of law.  Currently, California law conforms with federal law, 
        15 U.S.C. Section 1673(a), in establishing this amount at 30 times 
        the federal minimum wage.  This bill seeks to break lockstep with 
        federal law and increase this amount in California law to 40 times 
        the California minimum wage.  Because the current federal minimum 
        wage is $7.25/hour and the current California minimum wage is 
        $8.00/hour, this bill would effectively increase the garnishment 
        floor in California from $217.50 (i.e., 30 x $7.25) to $320 (i.e., 
        40 x $8.00).

        According to the author, the working poor in California simply 
        cannot make ends meet if their wages are garnished to satisfy a 
        consumer debt because existing law only protects $217.50 per week 
        from wage garnishment.  The author states:  "In nearly every county 
        in California, $217.50 a week is not even considered a living wage 
        for a single adult without children.  AB 1775 modestly raises the 
        garnishment floor with the result being that the first $320 of a 
        person's weekly wages is exempt from garnishment.  This reasonable 
        increase is still below what is considered a living wage for a 
        single Californian, but for a family trying to survive on a minimum 
        wage salary, it could mean the ability to cover both groceries and 
        medicine, or both rent and clothing."








                                                                AB 1775
                                                                Page  3


        Under existing law, the first 30 hours of a person's federal minimum 
        wage earnings (currently at $7.25/hour) are exempt from garnishment. 
         Instead, this bill applies the California minimum wage instead 
        (currently $8.00/hour) and exempts the first 40 hours of wage 
        earnings.  Under existing law, the creditor may garnish either the 
        entire amount of weekly earnings between the floor ($217.50) and 40 
        times the federal minimum wage ($290), or a maximum of 25% of the 
        earnings if they exceed the $290 figure-whichever amount is less.  
        Although this bill would raise the garnishment floor, the bill 
        preserves the proportionately equivalent formula for determining the 
        amount to be withheld-all arising from using the new garnishment 
        floor of $320 in the appropriate calculations.

        The existing "Employer Instructions" form (Judicial Council form 
        WG-002) contains a table that is intended to help employers 
        determine the correct amount of earnings to withhold based on the 
        amount of disposable earnings and the length of the employee pay 
        period.  For reference, the table below reflects the updated amounts 
        that would become effective if this bill were to become law in its 
        current form.

        TABLE 1: California minimum wage: $8.00 per hour

          ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         |   PAY    |  Daily   | Weekly  |Every Two | Twice a  |  Monthly  |
         |  PERIOD  |          |         |  Weeks   |  Month   |           |
         |----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+-----------|
         |DISPOSABLE|$0 - $320 |  $0 -   |$0 - $640 |   $0 -   |   $0 -    |
         | EARNINGS |          |  $320   |          | $693.33  |$1386.67   |
         |----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+-----------|
         |WITHHOLD  |   None   |  None   |   None   |   None   |   None    |
         |----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+-----------|
         |DISPOSABLE|$320.01 - | $320.01 |$640.01 - |$693.34 - |$1386.68 - |
         | EARNINGS | $426.67  |    -    | $853.01  | $924.44  | $1848.89  |
         |          |          | $426.67 |          |          |           |
         |----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+-----------|
         |WITHHOLD  |  Amount  | Amount  |  Amount  |  Amount  |  Amount   |
         |          |  above   |  above  |  above   |  above   |   above   |
         |          |   $320   |  $320   |   $640   | $693.33  | $1386.67  |
         |----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+-----------|
         |DISPOSABLE| $426.68  | $426.68 | $853.02  | $924.45  | $1848.90  |
         | EARNINGS | or more  | or more | or more  | or more  |  or more  |
         |----------+----------+---------+----------+----------+-----------|
         |WITHHOLD  | Maximum  | Maximum | Maximum  | Maximum  |Maximum of |








                                                                AB 1775
                                                                Page  4

         |          |of 25% of | of 25%  |of 25% of |of 25% of |  25% of   |
         |          |Disposable|   of    |Disposable|Disposable|Disposable |
         |          | Earnings |Disposabl| Earnings | Earnings |Earnings   |
         |          |          |    e    |          |          |           |
         |          |          |Earnings |          |          |           |
          ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


        Because existing California law incorporates by reference the 
        federal rule and formula for calculating earnings to be withheld, 
        the bill establishes a new California rule to:  1) adopt the federal 
        definition of "disposable earnings"; and, 2) specify the 
        mathematical multipliers that are used to calculate equivalent 
        amounts when converting weekly earnings into equivalent figures for 
        pay periods other than every week.

        Finally, at the request of Judicial Council, this bill delays 
        operation of these provisions until July 1, 2013, in order to give 
        the Council more time to update all relevant wage garnishment forms.

        The California Association of Collectors (CAC) writes in opposition 
        "This bill is premature . . . and undermines the fundamental 
        principles of personal responsibility, and also undermines the 
        business community's ability to provide credit for goods and 
        services by removing important tools necessary to enforce legitimate 
        and undisputed financial obligations."  CAC also asserts its 
        long-standing position that exemptions from wage garnishment are bad 
        public policy because they simply allow debtors to avoid paying 
        creditors for goods or services already rendered, in cases where a 
        court has already issued a judgment to satisfy a valid debt.

         
        Analysis Prepared by  :    Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 


                                                                  FN: 0003273