50-State Surveys › Wage Garnishment Limits by State
Wage Garnishment Limits by State
How much of an employee's paycheck can an ordinary judgment creditor garnish in this state, and what income is protected?
8 of 51 jurisdictions verified
every entry statute-checked, oldest 2026-07-05
What this survey covers
When a creditor wins a lawsuit and gets a money judgment, the next step is often garnishing the debtor's paycheck: a court order requiring the employer to hold back part of each check and send it to the creditor instead. Federal law sets a floor on how much any judgment creditor can take, but states are free to protect more of a paycheck than federal law requires, and many do. A handful go further and bar wage garnishment for ordinary debt almost entirely.
Every state answers this differently, and the differences matter to real paychecks. Some states simply adopt the federal formula. Others cut the percentage, raise the protected minimum-wage floor, or add an entirely separate exemption for anyone supporting a family. This survey answers one question, state by state: how much can an ordinary judgment creditor actually take, and what protects the rest? Each state's page states the rule in plain English, quotes the statute it comes from, and shows the date we last verified the statutory text.
How to read the table
Each column is one feature of the state's wage garnishment rule, answered the same way for every state, with the statutory citation compressed into the cell. Where a state bars ordinary wage garnishment outright, the cell says so directly rather than leaving the percentage columns blank. Click a state for the full plain-English page: the rule dimension by dimension, the practical traps people actually hit, and the verbatim statutory text with official source links.
The patterns across the states
Research is ongoing; this section will be filled in with the real cross-state patterns once a meaningful number of cells are built (see the runbook's decision tree step 4 for when to give this its final pass).
Swipe to see all columns →
| State | Governing law | Maximum that can be garnished | State rule vs. federal floor | Minimum-wage protected floor | Support, tax & student loan debts | Head-of-household/family exemption | Multiple garnishments at once | Protection from being fired |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California verified 2026-07-05 | Wage Garnishment Law, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 706.010–706.154 (cap: § 706.050); anti-retaliation rule in Cal. Lab. Code § 2929 | Lesser of 20% of weekly disposable earnings, or 40% of the amount disposable earnings exceed 48x the applicable minimum wage (CCP § 706.050) | More protective on both prongs than the federal 25%/30x formula (15 U.S.C. § 1673(a)) | 48x the state minimum hourly wage, or the local minimum wage if higher where the debtor works (CCP § 706.050(a)(2)) | Support orders (CCP § 706.030) outrank all others and can reach 50-65% under federal law; state tax orders run on a separate track (CCP § 706.070 et seq.); federal tax levies and federal student loan garnishment bypass this chapter entirely | No fixed dollar threshold; instead a discretionary, need-based exemption for earnings proven necessary to support the debtor or family (CCP § 706.051), unavailable against a support or state tax order | Strict first-in-time priority — the employer honors the first order served and a later ordinary order is ineffective until it's satisfied (CCP § 706.023), except a support order or elder/dependent-adult financial abuse order, which jump the queue | Cal. Lab. Code § 2929 bars discharge for a single garnishment (matching federal law) and goes further: voids any weaker contract clause and awards up to 30 days' back wages for a wrongful discharge |
| Florida verified 2026-07-05 | Wage garnishment exemption: Fla. Stat. § 222.11; support income-deduction system: Fla. Stat. §§ 61.12, 61.1301 | For most earners: the federal cap adopted by reference (lesser of 25% of disposable earnings or the amount over 30x federal minimum wage, Fla. Stat. § 222.11(2)(c)); a head of family is fully exempt up to $750/week and needs a written waiver to be garnished above that | Adopts the federal cap as-is for most earners, but layers a far more protective head-of-family exemption on top for anyone supporting a dependent | Same as the federal formula it adopts: 30x the federal minimum hourly wage, with no separate Florida multiplier | Alimony and child support run through a separate income-deduction-order system (Fla. Stat. §§ 61.12, 61.1301) capped at the higher federal support percentages (50-65% under 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b)), plus an extra 20% of current support toward any arrearage | One of the most protective in the country: all disposable earnings of a head of family at or under $750/week are fully exempt, and even above that threshold garnishment is barred unless the person signed a specific, strictly formatted written waiver (Fla. Stat. § 222.11(2)); exempt earnings stay protected for 6 months after deposit if traceable (§ 222.11(3)) | For support garnishments specifically, Fla. Stat. § 61.1301(4) prorates available income among multiple obligee families by each family's share of total current support owed once combined demands exceed the cap, giving current support priority over arrears; ordinary creditor garnishments have no separate statutory stacking rule in this chapter | Beyond the federal single-garnishment rule, Florida makes disciplining an employee over a continuing alimony/child-support garnishment a contempt of court (Fla. Stat. § 61.12(2)) and separately imposes a $250-$500 civil penalty plus a private right to sue for reinstatement and lost wages for firing over a support income deduction order (§ 61.1301(2)(j)) — protections not limited to a single garnishment |
| Georgia verified 2026-07-05 | O.C.G.A. § 18-4-5 sets the substantive cap and the anti-discharge rule; § 18-4-6 covers exempt property (including retirement funds); § 18-4-4 sets the garnishment periods (179 days for a continuing wage garnishment); § 18-4-18 resolves competing claims to the same garnished fund; support garnishment runs through a separate track, Article 3 of the same chapter (§§ 18-4-50 et seq.) | The lesser of 25% of the defendant's disposable earnings for the week (15% if the underlying judgment arose from a private student loan) or the amount by which disposable earnings for the week exceed $217.50 (O.C.G.A. § 18-4-5(a)) | Essentially matches the federal floor rather than exceeding it — same 25%/30x-minimum-wage shape as 15 U.S.C. § 1673 — with one added protection the federal statute doesn't have: a separate, lower 15% cap specifically for judgments arising from private (non-federally-guaranteed) student loans | A fixed $217.50 per week, written directly into the statute rather than as 'thirty times the current federal minimum hourly wage' the way many other states phrase it; § 18-4-5(a)(3) confirms this figure is calculated at 30 hours per week at $7.25 per hour and prorated for other pay periods, but the dollar amount itself doesn't move automatically if the federal minimum wage changes — it would take a further amendment to this statute to update it | Support garnishments run through a separate procedural track (continuing garnishment for support, Article 3) and can reach up to 50% of disposable earnings under the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act's support tiers (15 U.S.C. § 1673(b)), well above the ordinary 25%/$217.50 cap; retirement and pension funds are exempt from garnishment until actually distributed to the member, and even then are only exempt to the same extent as ordinary disposable earnings (O.C.G.A. § 18-4-6(a)(2)); federal tax levies and federal student loan administrative garnishment reach Georgia wages under separate federal authority | None as a distinct dimension — Georgia's ordinary cap in § 18-4-5 applies the same way regardless of dependents or household status, with no additional family-support exemption layered on top of it | The ordinary 25%/$217.50 cap applies in the aggregate even if the garnishee is served with more than one ordinary garnishment naming the same defendant — it isn't multiplied per creditor (O.C.G.A. § 18-4-5(b)) — but that combined-cap rule doesn't apply to a continuing garnishment for support, which runs on its own track; where competing garnishment claims reach the same deposited money or property, the claimant with the OLDEST ENTERED JUDGMENT has priority to it, not whoever filed the garnishment first (O.C.G.A. § 18-4-18) | O.C.G.A. § 18-4-5(c) bars discharging an employee because earnings were garnished 'for any one obligation, even though more than one summons of garnishment may be served upon such employer with respect to the obligation' — protecting against firing over repeated summonses tied to the SAME debt, though still limited to a single underlying obligation like the federal rule (15 U.S.C. § 1674) |
| Illinois verified 2026-07-05 | 735 ILCS 5/12-801 et seq. (Code of Civil Procedure, Article XII, Part 8, 'Wage Deductions') sets the cap, employer duties, and multi-order priority (§§ 12-803, 12-804, 12-808, 12-818); child/spousal support withholding runs through a separate statute, the Income Withholding for Support Act, 750 ILCS 28/20(c)(6) | The lesser of (1) 15% of the debtor's gross wages for the work week, or (2) the amount by which disposable earnings for that week exceed 45 times the greater of the federal minimum hourly wage or the Illinois minimum hourly wage (735 ILCS 5/12-803) | More protective than the federal floor on both prongs of the formula: Illinois caps at 15% of gross wages instead of 25% of disposable earnings, and protects earnings up to 45 times the applicable minimum wage instead of 30 times, while also using whichever of the federal or Illinois minimum wage is higher rather than the federal wage alone | 45 times the greater of the federal minimum hourly wage or the Illinois minimum hourly wage set under the Minimum Wage Law § 4, for a wage deduction summons served on or after January 1, 2006 (735 ILCS 5/12-803) | Support withholding runs through the separate Income Withholding for Support Act and is capped at 'the maximum amount permitted under the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act' rather than any independent Illinois percentage (750 ILCS 28/20(c)(6)) — the same 50-65% federal support tiers depending on the obligor's other dependents and arrears; pension and retirement benefits, refunds, and required contributions are exempt from an ordinary wage deduction order regardless of the 15%/45x cap (735 ILCS 5/12-804); federal tax levies and federal student loan administrative garnishment reach Illinois wages under separate federal authority | None on top of the general cap — Illinois's wage-deduction chapter has no separate head-of-household or family-support exemption; the retirement-benefit exemption in § 12-804 is a real additional protection but doesn't depend on dependents or household status, and no dependent-based dollar add-on exists elsewhere in the chapter | A wage-deduction lien obtained under a summons has priority over any subsequent wage-deduction lien, except that a lien for the support of a spouse or dependent children outranks all other liens obtained under this chapter; where more than one summons is served on the same employer, they take effect and are satisfied in the order served (735 ILCS 5/12-808(b)) | Matches the federal floor's limitation exactly rather than exceeding it: § 12-818 bars discharging or suspending an employee because earnings were subjected to a deduction order 'for any one indebtedness' — the same one-debt limitation as 15 U.S.C. § 1674, so Illinois doesn't extend its own protection to a second or subsequent deduction order; violating § 12-818 is a Class A misdemeanor |
| New York verified 2026-07-05 | Income execution: N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5231; priority among execution creditors: § 5234; anti-retaliation: § 5252; child/spousal support income executions: §§ 5241-5242 | An income execution itself may only demand up to 10% of what the debtor is receiving; the amount an employer can actually be ordered to withhold is capped at the lesser of 25% of disposable earnings or the amount over 30x the greater of the federal or state minimum wage (CPLR § 5231(b)); barred entirely for a judgment arising from a medical debt lawsuit | More protective than the federal floor on the minimum-wage prong: New York uses 30x the GREATER of the state or federal minimum wage, and New York's minimum wage is well above the federal one, so more of a lower-paid worker's earnings are shielded; the percentage prong matches the federal 25% | 30x the greater of the federal minimum hourly wage or the New York state minimum hourly wage set in Labor Law § 652 (CPLR § 5231(b)(i)) | Support runs through separate income executions/deduction orders (CPLR §§ 5241, 5242) reaching the higher federal support percentages; when an ordinary execution and a support deduction both apply, the ordinary execution is capped at whatever room is left under the 25% ceiling after the support deduction (CPLR § 5231(b)(iii)); a judgment from a medical debt lawsuit brought by a hospital or licensed health care professional cannot be enforced by wage garnishment at all, a 2022 carve-out (CPLR § 5231(b)(iv)) | None — New York has no separate head-of-family/head-of-household wage exemption; its main protective feature (the greater-of-state-or-federal minimum wage floor) applies uniformly regardless of dependents | Strict first-in-time priority among ordinary execution creditors delivered to the same enforcement officer, but a child-support execution automatically outranks 'any other assignment, levy or process' no matter when it was delivered, and multiple past-due child support orders share proceeds proportionally to their claims (CPLR § 5234(b)) | Broader than the federal floor: CPLR § 5252 bars discharging, laying off, refusing to promote, disciplining, or refusing to hire someone because ONE OR MORE wage assignments or income executions have been served — not limited to a single debt — and adds a civil penalty ($500 first violation, $1,000 each thereafter) on top of a private right to sue for up to six weeks' lost wages and reinstatement |
| Ohio verified 2026-07-05 | Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A)(13) sets the actual exemption amount (framed as what's protected, not what's takeable); §§ 2716.041 and 2716.05 govern the continuous garnishment order, multi-order stacking, and anti-discharge rule; support withholding runs through § 3121.03, which caps withholding at the federal CCPA support percentages, and § 3121.39 is a separate, support-specific anti-discharge statute | The amount NOT exempt — and therefore takeable — is the lesser of 25% of disposable earnings or the amount by which disposable earnings exceed a minimum-wage-based floor, expressed in Ohio's statute as an exemption equal to the GREATER of that floor or 75% of disposable earnings (Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A)(13)) | Essentially identical to the federal floor rather than more protective: Ohio's exemption formula in § 2329.66(A)(13) restates the same 25%-of-disposable/30x-minimum-wage two-part test as 15 U.S.C. § 1673, just phrased as what's exempt instead of what's collectible, and it uses only the federal minimum hourly wage as the reference point rather than the higher of the federal or Ohio wage | 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage per week (scaled up for other pay periods: 60x biweekly, 65x semimonthly, 130x monthly), using the federal minimum wage specifically — not Ohio's own, higher state minimum wage — as the reference point (Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A)(13)(a)) | Support orders and IRS levies automatically qualify as a 'higher priority order' that displaces a pending ordinary garnishment (Ohio Rev. Code § 2716.041(C)(1)(e)); support withholding itself is capped at 'the maximum amount permitted' under 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b) — the federal 50-65% support tiers — by direct cross-reference rather than an independent Ohio percentage (§ 3121.03(A)(1)); most pension and retirement benefits are separately exempt from garnishment regardless of the ordinary cap (§ 2329.66(A)(10)) | None — Ohio's § 2329.66(A)(13) exemption formula applies uniformly regardless of dependents or household status, with no additional family-support test layered on top of it | Two tiers: a support order or IRS levy automatically outranks a pending ordinary garnishment and can displace it (§ 2716.041(C)(1)(e)); among ordinary judgment-creditor garnishments, courts must issue orders in the same sequence the clerk received the affidavits, and a garnishee processes them one at a time — each order runs for up to 182 days before the next one in line begins — rather than splitting the capped percentage across multiple creditors at once (§ 2716.05; § 2716.041(D)) | Ohio Rev. Code § 2716.05 bars discharging an employee 'solely because of the successful garnishment of the employee's personal earnings by only one judgment creditor in any twelve-month period' — the same one-creditor limitation as 15 U.S.C. § 1674, but codified with an explicit rolling twelve-month window; a separate statute, § 3121.39, gives child/spousal support withholding its own broader protection barring discharge, discipline, or refusal to hire, with no one-creditor limit |
| Pennsylvania verified 2026-07-05 | 42 Pa.C.S. § 8127(a) (the exemption itself, in the Judicial Code's judgments-and-liens chapter); procedural rules for the residential-lease exception sit in Pa.R.C.P. 3301-3313, separate from the general execution rules in Pa.R.C.P. 3101 et seq. | Zero for an ordinary private judgment creditor (credit card, medical debt, personal loan, tort judgment) — § 8127(a) exempts wages, salaries, and commissions from attachment entirely except for the debts it names: divorce (23 Pa.C.S. Pt. IV), support, board for four weeks or less, a capped residential-lease judgment, PHEAA student loans, and criminal restitution/costs/fines/bail | Far more protective than the federal floor for the debts most people actually owe: rather than merely capping garnishment at 25% of disposable earnings the way federal law alone would, Pennsylvania bars wage attachment for ordinary private debt entirely | Not applicable in the ordinary case — there's no percentage/minimum-wage formula because wages aren't reachable at all for ordinary debt. The one place a formula exists is the residential-lease exception, where the amount attached is capped at 10% of the debtor's net wages per pay period (net of federal/state/local income tax, FICA and nonvoluntary retirement, union dues, and health insurance premiums) or an amount that would drop net income below the federal poverty income guidelines, whichever is less | Support orders get first priority and criminal-restitution/costs/fines/bail orders get second priority over any other attachment, execution, garnishment, or wage assignment (§ 8127(b)); § 8127(a) separately opens wages to attachment for divorce-related obligations, board debts of four weeks or less, and PHEAA-guaranteed student loans; federal tax levies and federal (non-PHEAA) student loan administrative garnishment still reach Pennsylvania wages because federal law preempts the state exemption | None as a separate test — moot, because the general § 8127(a) exemption already protects all wages from ordinary attachment regardless of dependents or household status, leaving nothing for a head-of-household exemption to add | Support orders are first priority and criminal-restitution/fines/bail orders are second priority over any other attachment, execution, garnishment, or wage assignment (§ 8127(b)); for the residential-lease wage-attachment exception specifically, if an employer is served with more than one such attachment against the same debtor, each is satisfied fully, in the order served, before the next one takes effect (§ 8127(c)(1)) | More protective than the federal floor's wording: § 8127(e) bars an employer from taking 'any adverse action' against an employee solely because their wages, salaries, or commissions have been attached — broader than the federal rule (15 U.S.C. § 1674), which only bars discharge, and Pennsylvania's bar isn't limited to a single attachment the way the federal rule effectively is |
| Texas verified 2026-07-05 | Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 28 (the bar itself); codified in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 63.004 and Tex. Prop. Code § 42.001(b)(1); support exceptions run through Tex. Fam. Code chs. 8 and 158 | Zero for an ordinary judgment creditor — current wages for personal service can't be garnished at all except for child support or spousal maintenance | Far more protective than the federal floor: Texas bars ordinary wage garnishment entirely, where federal law alone would allow up to 25% | Not applicable — there's no percentage/minimum-wage formula, because ordinary wages can't be garnished for a private debt in the first place | Child support (Fam. Code § 158.009, capped at 50% of disposable earnings) and spousal maintenance (Fam. Code § 8.101) are the only private-party exceptions the Constitution allows; federal tax levies and federal student loan garnishment (up to 15%, no court judgment needed) reach Texas wages too, but only because federal law preempts the state bar | Moot — the general constitutional bar already exempts all current wages from ordinary garnishment regardless of household or dependent status, so no separate head-of-household test exists or is needed | For the debts Texas does allow: a combined support withholding order pays current child support first, then current spousal maintenance, then child support arrears, then spousal maintenance arrears (Fam. Code § 8.101(d)); multiple child-support orders split available withholding capacity up to the 50% cap (Fam. Code § 158.207) | No Texas-specific statute; Texas relies solely on the federal bar on firing an employee over garnishment of a single debt (15 U.S.C. § 1674) |
This survey covers 8 of 51 jurisdictions so far; new states are verified and added continuously. A state missing here hasn't been verified yet — we don't publish unverified answers.