5-5-106. Limitation on garnishment - definitions.
Statute text
(1) For the purposes of this part 1:
(a) "Disposable earnings" means that part of the earnings of an individual remaining after the deduction from those earnings of amounts required by law to be withheld.
(b) "Garnishment" means any legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of an individual are required to be withheld for payment of a debt.
(2) (a) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek that is subjected to garnishment to enforce payment of a judgment arising from a consumer credit transaction may not exceed the lesser of:
(I) Twenty-five percent of the individual's disposable earnings for that week; or
(II) The amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206 (a)(1) of the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938", 29 U.S.C. sec. 201 et seq., in effect at the time the earnings are payable; or
(III) The amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the state minimum hourly wage pursuant to section 15 of article XVIII of the state constitution in effect at the time the earnings are payable.
(b) In the case of earnings for a pay period other than a week, the administrator may prescribe by rule a multiple of the federal minimum hourly wage or the state minimum hourly wage, equivalent in effect to that set forth in subparagraphs (II) or (III) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (2).
(3) No court may make, execute, or enforce an order or process in violation of this section.
(4) It shall not be necessary for any individual to claim the exemptions for that portion of the aggregate disposable earnings that are not subject to garnishment as set forth in subsection (2) of this section, and such exemption from garnishment shall be self-executing in any garnishment procedure.
(5) This section does not repeal, alter, or affect other statutes of this state prohibiting garnishments or providing for larger exemptions from garnishments than are allowed under this section.
History
Source: L. 2000: Entire article R&RE, p. 1234, 1, effective July 1. L. 2007: (2) amended, p. 878, 6, effective July 1.
Annotations
Editor's note: This section is similar to former 5-5-105, as it existed prior to 2000.
Annotations
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2007 act amending subsection (2), see section 1 of chapter 226, Session Laws of Colorado 2007.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Annotator's note. Since 5-5-106 is similar to 5-5-105 as it existed prior to the 2000 repeal and reenactment of articles 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 of this title, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.
This section is substantially similar to the federal wage garnishment law. First Nat'l Bank v. Columbia Credit Corp., 179 Colo. 242, 499 P.2d 1163 (1972).
Consequently, garnishments may be exempted from federal act. The secretary of labor may exempt from the garnishment provisions of the federal act garnishments under the law of any state which are substantially similar to those provided in the federal wage garnishment law. First Nat'l Bank v. Columbia Credit Corp., 179 Colo. 242, 499 P.2d 1163 (1972).
The federal wage garnishment law does not annul, alter, affect, or exempt any person from complying with state laws which prohibit garnishment, or which provide for more limited garnishments than are permitted under federal law. First Nat'l Bank v. Columbia Credit Corp., 179 Colo. 242, 499 P.2d 1163 (1972).
Whichever law is the more restrictive and results in the smaller garnishment is the one which must be applied in any given situation. First Nat'l Bank v. Columbia Credit Corp., 179 Colo. 242, 499 P.2d 1163 (1972).
Limitation inapplicable to child support obligations. The limitation contained in subsection (2) is inapplicable to an order of assignment of wages to enforce child support obligations. In re McCue, 645 P.2d 854 (Colo. App. 1982).
Applied in Bernstein v. Richardson, 34 B.R. 611 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1983).