Free Reply - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona ELIZABETH A. WILSON Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 017087 Financial Litigation Unit 405 W. Congress, #4900 Tucson, Arizona 85701-5041 Telephone: (520)620-7300 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, CR 03-50065-PHX-FJM v. Charles Edward Murphy, Defendant, and Allied Exhaust Systems Inc., Garnishee. REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF GARNISHMENT DISPOSITION ORDER

The Application for Writ of Garnishment was filed on October 14, 2005. The Writ of Garnishment was issued and Defendant's employer("the Garnishee') was served on October 31, 2005. The Garnishee filed its Answer of Garnishee on November 14, 2005 and commenced deducting monies from Defendant's paycheck on November 9, 2005 for the October 24, 2005 to November 6, 2005 pay period. Since that date, and up until the effective date of the State of Texas garnishment, the Garnishee has been withholding monies from Defendant's paycheck without objection from Defendant. Defendant now states that he did not receive notice of Garnishment Instructions to Debtor and presumably that is why he did not answer within the prescribed time period. He further states that he cannot afford to live having both the United States and the State of Texas garnishments in effect. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3205 (c)(8), a

Case 2:03-cr-50065-FJM

Document 19

Filed 02/27/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

garnishment for the support of a person has priority over a Writ of Garnishment issued by the United States pursuant to the same statute. Accordingly, because the United States is limited by statute to garnishing 25% of the non-exempt earnings of a debtor, and it appears that the State of Texas is garnishing close to 50% of Defendant's earnings, there will be no non-exempt earnings available for the United States. WHEREFORE, the United States requests that this Court enter a Garnishment Disposition Order directing the Garnishee to pay the withholdings currently held by the Garnishee pursuant to the Writ of Garnishment and to thereafter, quash the Writ of Garnishment issued on or about October 14, 2005. DATED this 27th day of February, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DISTRICT OF ARIZONA s/Elizabeth A. Wilson ELIZABETH A. WILSON Assistant U.S. Attorney

I hereby certify that on the 27th day of February, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and I served the attached document by mail on the following, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF system. Charles Edward Murphy Apache Junction, AZ Allied Exhaust Systems, Inc. Benicia, California S/ Gloria Linsenbach

2

Case 2:03-cr-50065-FJM

Document 19

Filed 02/27/2006

Page 2 of 2