If my wages are already being garnished at the maximum amount, can a second creditor's later garnishment also start running, and how does the six-month clock work?

Subject

Wage Garnishment Liens: Amount, Priority, and Duration

Plain-English summary

The opinion answers five technical questions about how Tennessee's wage-garnishment statutes handle a second writ that arrives while a first writ is still active. The statute that controls the maximum amount of disposable earnings that may be garnished is Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106, which mirrors the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act's 15 U.S.C. § 1673. Federal law caps the garnishable amount and preempts any state rule that would let a creditor reach more than the federal ceiling.

Tennessee's general priority rule, in § 26-2-214, says a wage-garnishment lien runs from service of the execution and lasts until the judgment is satisfied or six months pass. A first-in-time writ has priority over later writs. But § 26-2-224(a) carves out one exception: a later-filed writ that itself seeks the maximum amount allowable does not run concurrently with the earlier writ; it has to wait its turn entirely.

The AG synthesized those rules into the following: a later writ that seeks less than the maximum can run concurrently with an earlier writ, but the combined garnishment can never exceed the federal cap. While the first writ is taking the cap, the second collects nothing. As the first writ winds down or is satisfied, the second writ adjusts upward without needing to be re-served. And the six-month duration of the second writ is measured from when it was served, not from when it actually started collecting money. So a second writ that waits behind a first writ may have very little time left by the time it begins to collect.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What is the maximum amount of wages that can be garnished in Tennessee?

The opinion identified Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106 as the controlling formula. It caps the garnishable amount at the lesser of (1) 25 percent of the worker's disposable earnings for that week, or (2) the amount by which disposable earnings exceed thirty times the federal minimum hourly wage. The opinion notes that Tennessee law also allows additional exemptions for dependent children under § 26-2-107.

What does "concurrent" actually mean here?

In the AG's analysis, two garnishment liens "run concurrently" when both are in force at the same time but only one (the first) is collecting money. The second writ is alive (its six-month duration is running), and it is positioned to step up if the first writ ends, but it produces no withholding while the first writ is hitting the cap.

What if the first writ is for less than the cap?

Then the second writ can collect the difference between the cap and what the first writ is taking. The example used in the opinion: if the cap is 25 percent and the first writ is taking 15 percent, the second writ can collect up to 10 percent. When the first writ is satisfied or expires, the second writ automatically adjusts upward to whatever amount is allowed (still capped at the federal maximum).

Does the second writ get a fresh six-month period when it starts actually collecting?

No. The six-month duration in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214(b)(1) runs from service of the execution. Adjusting the second writ upward when the first writ ends does not reset the clock. A creditor whose later writ has been waiting most of the six months may need to obtain and serve a new writ to continue collecting.

Does this analysis cover child-support garnishments?

No. The opinion limits its conclusions to Chapter 2 of Title 26. As a footnote noted, child-support income assignments under § 36-5-501(j)(1) "shall take priority over any other assignment or garnishment of wages" under that chapter. Different statutory schemes apply to child support, federal tax levies, and similar non-Chapter 2 collection devices.

Background and statutory framework

Wage garnishment is the standard mechanism by which a judgment creditor reaches a debtor's employment income. The federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1671–1677) sets the floor of debtor protection: states may protect more, but they cannot let a creditor reach more than the federal cap. The opinion documents that Tennessee's § 26-2-106 mirrors the federal formula and is read consistently with it. Federal regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 870.1 and § 870.11 fill in the procedural details.

Tennessee's own priority structure is in § 26-2-214(b): a lien attaches at service, persists until the judgment is paid or six months pass, and an earlier lien beats a later one. Section 26-2-224(a), enacted to deal with the specific problem of stacked maximum-amount writs, says a later-filed writ that itself seeks the maximum does not run concurrently with the earlier writ. The opinion locates the key statutory language and pulls a clean rule from it: the carve-out only applies when both conditions are met (later in time and seeking the max). When the second writ asks for less than the max, the general § 26-2-214 priority rule controls and the writs do run together.

The AG's reading is consistent with how the office had analyzed similar questions in 1995 (Op. 95-072) and aligns with the long line of cases (Long Island Trust, Voss Products, Hodgson, Crane) that hold federal law sets the ceiling but leaves priority to the states.

Citations

• Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 26-2-102, 26-2-106, 26-2-107, 26-2-214, 26-2-216, 26-2-224
• Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-501(j)(1) (child support priority)
• 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1673, 1677
• 29 C.F.R. §§ 870.1, 870.11
• Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 95-072 (July 6, 1995)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2019/op19-10.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF TENNESSEE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 3, 2019

Opinion No. 19-10

Wage Garnishment Liens: Amount, Priority, and Duration

Question 1
If an existing writ of garnishment is deducting the maximum allowable amount under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106, can a second, later-filed writ of garnishment run concurrently with the first writ if the second writ seeks to deduct an amount less than the maximum allowable amount?

Opinion 1
Yes. A second, later-filed writ that seeks less than the maximum allowable amount would run concurrently with the first writ.

Question 2
If an existing writ of garnishment is deducting an amount less than the maximum allowable amount under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106, can a second, later-filed writ of garnishment run concurrently with the first writ if the second writ seeks to deduct an amount less than the maximum allowable amount?

Opinion 2
Yes. A second, later-filed writ that seeks less than the maximum allowable amount would run concurrently with the first writ.

Question 3
If the answer to Question #2 is "yes," can the second writ deduct an amount up to the maximum allowable amount under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106, or is the amount that the second writ can deduct restricted by the amount deducted by the first writ so that the amount of the first and second writs, combined, do not exceed the maximum allowable amount under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106?

Opinion 3
The amount that the second writ could deduct would be restricted by the amount deducted by the first writ. The amount of the first and second writs, combined, cannot exceed the maximum allowable amount under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106.

Question 4
If the amount that can be deducted by a second, concurrently running writ is restricted by the amount being deducted by the first writ, does the previously restricted deduction under the second writ automatically adjust upward when the first writ is satisfied, expires or is stayed, or is a new writ of garnishment required to collect the difference?

Opinion 4
A new writ of garnishment is not required to increase the amount of money available to satisfy the obligation of the second writ. The second writ adjusts upward.

Question 5
If the deduction under the second writ of garnishment automatically adjusts upward as described in Question #4, how does the six-month time limit prescribed in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214 apply to this adjustment? Can the adjusted withholding run for the full six months, or does the adjusted withholding cease six months from the time withholding originally began on the second writ?

Opinion 5
Adjusting the second writ of garnishment upward does not alter when the six-month time period prescribed in Tennessee Code Annotated § 26-2-214 begins. The lien created by the second writ would begin at the time of its service.

ANALYSIS

Under Tennessee law, a person's wages are generally subject to the claims of judgment creditors through the process of "garnishment," which is defined as "any legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of an individual are required to be withheld for payment of any debt." Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-102(3). Not all of a person's earnings, though, are subject to garnishment. A portion of a judgment debtor's earnings is protected by Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106, which provides the formula for calculating the amount of a debtor's earnings that may be subject to garnishment:

(a) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed:
(1) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the disposable earnings for that week; or
(2) The amount by which the disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty (30) times the federal minimum hourly wage at the time the earnings for any pay period become due and payable, whichever is less.
(b) In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, an equivalent amount shall be in effect.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106.

This statutory provision is patterned after 15 U.S.C. § 1673, a provision of the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act ("CCPA"), which provides the identical formula for determining the maximum allowable garnishment of an individual's earnings. Kendle v. Kendle, M2017-02434-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 5098202 *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018); In re Lawrence, 219 B.R. 786, 795 (E.D. Tenn. 1998). While States may provide a judgment debtor with greater protection from garnishment than that provided by federal law, they may not provide lesser protection. Marshall v. Safeway, 88 A.3d 735, 738 (Md. 2014) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1677); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. A. T. & G. Co., Inc., 239 N.W.2d 614, 617 (Mich. App. 1976) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1673(c), -1677). The CCPA preempts State garnishment laws that permit a larger amount of a debtor's earnings to be garnished than that provided by federal law. Crane v. Crane, 417 F.Supp. 38, 40 (E.D. Okla. 1976) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671-1677); Hodgson v. Hamilton Mun. Court, 349 F.Supp. 1125, 1132-1133 (S.D. Ohio 1972) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1673(c), -1677).

The CCPA, though, does not preempt the entire field of garnishment law from the States. Hodgson, 349 F.Supp. at 1132. For instance, the CCPA does not establish any order of priority among garnishments. Long Island Trust Co. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 647 F.2d 336, 338 (2nd Cir. 1981); Voss Products, Inc. v. Carlton, 147 F.Supp.2d 892, 896 (E.D. Tenn. 2001); Commonwealth Edison v. Denson, 494 N.E.2d 1186, 1189 (Ill. App. 1986). See 29 C.F.R. § 870.1. Therefore, unless another federal statutory provision sets priorities among garnishments, the matter of priority is determined by State law. Long Island Trust, 647 F.2d at 339 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 870.11(a)(2) which is currently 29 C.F.R. § 870.11(b)(2)); Voss Products, 147 F.Supp.2d at 896; Denson, 494 N.E.2d at 1189. But the application of priority laws may not cause the garnished amount of an individual's disposable earnings to exceed the ceiling set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1673. 29 C.F.R. § 870.11(b)(2). See Antwerp Weatherhead Fed. Credit Union v. Gonzales, 30 Ohio Misc.2d 31, 33-34, 507 N.E.2d 472, 475 (1982).

Accordingly, assuming no other federal statutory provision sets priorities among garnishments, Tennessee law would govern the priority of garnishments. Tennessee Code Annotated § 26-2-214(b) generally addresses the duties of the garnishee with respect to the duration and priority of wage garnishment liens:

(1) To the extent of the amount due upon the judgment and costs, the garnishee shall hold, subject to the order of the court, any nonexempt earnings due or that subsequently become due. The judgment or balance due is a lien on earnings due at the time of the service of the execution. The lien shall continue as to subsequent earnings until the total amount due upon the judgment and costs is paid or satisfied, or until the expiration of the payment period immediately prior to six (6) calendar months after service of the execution, whichever occurs first. The lien on subsequent earnings shall terminate sooner if the relationship between judgment debtor and garnishee is terminated or if the underlying judgment is vacated or modified.
(2) A lien obtained under this section shall have priority over any subsequent liens obtained under this section.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214(b) (emphasis added).

This statutory provision functions as follows: A wage garnishment lien begins at the time of service of the execution; and the lien remains in effect until the judgment is satisfied, or until the expiration of the employer's payroll period immediately prior to six calendar months after service of the execution, whichever occurs first. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214(b)(1). If a second wage garnishment is served upon the employer during the six-month period in which the earlier garnishment lien is in effect, the six-month duration of the second lien is measured from its time of service. Thus, the two liens would overlap, and according to (b)(2) of the statute, the first would have priority. Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 95-072 (July 6, 1995).

Tennessee's garnishment law, though, does contain an exception to the general priority scheme set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214(b) that requires multiple liens to run concurrently. Tennessee Code Annotated § 26-2-224(a) provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule to the contrary, a writ of garnishment that is filed later in time than another such writ, and which deducts the maximum amount allowable by law from the debtor's wages, shall not run concurrently with the earlier filed writ with regard to the six-month time limit prescribed in § 26-2-214. Such later filed writ of garnishment shall not begin to run until the earlier filed writ's judgment has been satisfied, such earlier filed writ has expired, or such earlier filed writ has been stayed by installment motion as prescribed in § 26-2-216.

By its terms, this statutory exception applies only when a writ of garnishment is "filed later in time" to another writ of garnishment and the later-in-time writ of garnishment seeks to deduct the maximum amount allowable. This construction is commanded by the fact that the phrase "and which deducts the maximum amount allowable by law from the debtor's wages" modifies only the phrase "writ of garnishment that is filed later in time." See General Care Corp. v. Olsen, 705 S.W.2d 642, 648 (Tenn. 1986) (statutes are to be construed in their entirety and in accordance with grammatical rules if possible). See also Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011) (when construing legislative enactments, a court's primary objective is to carry out the General Assembly's intent without broadening or restricting the statute beyond its intended scope).

Accordingly, this statutory exception merely requires the garnishee to examine the later-in-time writ of garnishment in a vacuum. If the later-in-time writ of garnishment seeks the maximum amount allowable, the exception applies, and the later-in-time writ of garnishment does not run concurrently with the earlier-filed writ. The later-in-time writ begins to run when the earlier writ terminates. In all other cases, the general priority scheme in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214 applies.

1. Therefore, even if an existing writ of garnishment is deducting the maximum amount allowable under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106, a later-filed writ would run concurrently with the first writ as long as the second writ seeks to deduct an amount that is less than the maximum allowable amount. The general priority scheme in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214 would apply; the statutory exception set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-224(a) would not apply. Accordingly, under this scenario, the second writ would run concurrently with the first writ, but the second writ would generate no payments to the judgment creditor as long as the first writ remains in effect because the first writ is deducting the maximum amount allowable. Federal law prohibits Tennessee law from being construed in a manner that would permit the garnishment of a greater amount of an employee's disposable earnings than that permitted under 15 U.S.C. § 1673. See 29 C.F.R. § 870.11(b)(2); Crane, 417 F.Supp. at 40; Hodgson, 349 F.Supp. at 1132-1133.

2. • 4. Similarly, if an existing writ of garnishment is deducting less than the maximum amount allowable under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106, a later-filed writ would run concurrently with the existing writ as long as the second writ seeks to deduct an amount that is less than the maximum allowable amount. The general priority scheme in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214 would apply. Under this scenario, the second writ could generate only up to the difference between the maximum allowable amount and the first writ. For instance, if Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106(a) establishes the maximum allowable amount that may be garnished from a particular judgment debtor's disposable earnings at 25% and the first writ is garnishing 15% of the debtor's disposable earnings, the second writ could garnish only 10%. Once the first writ of garnishment is satisfied or expires, though, the second writ adjusts upward, as long as the amount being garnished does not exceed 25%. Again, federal law prohibits Tennessee law from being construed in a manner that would permit the garnishment of a greater amount of an employee's disposable earnings than permitted under 15 U.S.C. § 1673. See 29 C.F.R. § 870.11(b)(2); Crane, 417 F.Supp. at 40; Hodgson, 349 F.Supp. at 1132-1133.

3. In the above scenario, adjusting the second writ of garnishment upward does not alter when the six-month time period prescribed in Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-114 begins. The lien created by the second writ would begin at the time of its service. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-214(b)(1).

HERBERT H. SLATERY III
Attorney General and Reporter

ANDRÉE SOPHIA BLUMSTEIN
Solicitor General

LAURA T. KIDWELL
Senior Assistant Attorney General

Requested by:
The Honorable Becky Massey
State Senator
Cordell Hull Building, Suite 776
425 5th Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37243