Alaska
Alaska Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 12, 2026). · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Before a private creditor or debt collector touches your paycheck in Alaska, it has to sue you, win a judgment, and get a writ of execution from the court. Most garnishments that do happen come from default judgments entered because the person sued never responded, so answering the summons is the highest-value move available to you, even if you think the debt is old, wrong, or not yours. Two kinds of debt skip the courtroom entirely: child support, which the state agency withholds administratively, and defaulted student loans, garnished administratively under federal law. Both are covered below.
Alaska's system then departs from most states in a useful way: instead of a percentage cap, it protects a flat dollar amount of your earnings each week.
Wage Garnishment in Alaska: A Flat-Dollar Exemption
Alaska Statute 09.38.030 exempts a debtor's weekly net earnings up to a base amount that the Department of Labor adjusts by regulation for inflation. The current adjusted figures, set by 8 AAC 95.030 and used on state agency garnishment worksheets today, are:
- $473 per week of net earnings exempt for most debtors.
- $743 per week exempt where the debtor's earnings are the sole support of the household, under AS 09.38.050(b) as adjusted. Claiming the higher amount requires asserting sole-support status, generally by sworn statement through the court's exemption claim process.
Net earnings means gross earnings minus the amounts required by law or court order to be withheld. If you are paid monthly, the weekly figure is applied by dividing monthly earnings by 4.3; semi-monthly pay divides by 2.17.
Everything above the exempt amount is potentially garnishable, which makes Alaska's regime more protective than the federal formula for lower earners and sometimes less protective for higher earners. The federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1673, still applies of its own force, so a garnishment can never take more than the federal 25%-of-disposable-earnings ceiling allows. Nonresidents garnished in Alaska are handled under the federal 25%/30-times formula rather than the flat-dollar exemption.
Garnishment that does not need a judgment
The sue-first rule governs private creditors and debt collectors. Two collection tracks bypass it:
- Child support. A support order enforced by the Child Support Services Division carries an income withholding order that may be an order of the agency itself, not only a court order, under AS 25.27.062(a). AS 25.27.250(a) then lets the agency issue an order to withhold and deliver without prior notice to the obligor, including immediately once an arrearage occurs or 30 days after service of an administrative notice and finding of financial responsibility. No lawsuit and no judgment are required at any point in that sequence.
- Defaulted student loans. Under 20 U.S.C. 1095a, the Department of Education or a guaranty agency may garnish disposable pay administratively without going to court. The borrower gets written notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and the deduction is capped at 15 percent of disposable pay unless the borrower consents in writing to more.
Two further points:
- Alaska has no state income tax, so state tax wage levies are essentially a non-issue for consumers. State agencies collecting other debts, such as the student loan agency ACPE, use the same exemption machinery, applying the $473 weekly exemption to an administrative garnishment.
- We found no Alaska statute extending firing protection beyond the federal rule. Federal law, 15 U.S.C. 1674, bars discharge over garnishment for any one debt only.
Bank Account Protections
For debtors who are not paid on a regular weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly schedule, and for money that is not wages at all, Alaska exempts $1,890 per month in liquid assets, or $2,970 for a sole household earner. Liquid assets include deposits, securities, notes, drafts, accrued vacation pay, refunds, prepayments, and receivables. Permanent Fund Dividends are excluded from that definition and have their own partial garnishability rules.

Exactly how the earnings exemption and the liquid-asset exemption interact once a paycheck is deposited is not spelled out in the statute text, so do not assume deposited wages keep their full wage exemption automatically. Claim every exemption that plausibly applies when you receive a garnishment notice.
Federal benefits carry their own automatic shield: under 31 CFR Part 212, the last two months of directly deposited Social Security, VA, and similar federal benefits are protected without any filing, and the bank must apply that protection itself. Paper-check deposits do not get the automatic version and must be claimed through the court.
Statute of Limitations on Debt in Alaska
Alaska is one of the shorter-limitations states for ordinary consumer debt, and it does not distinguish written from oral contracts:
| Debt type | Limitations period | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Contract or liability, written or oral (credit cards, medical bills, most accounts) | 3 years | AS 09.10.053 |
| Promissory note | 6 years from the due date | AS 45.03.118 |
| Sale-of-goods contracts (UCC) | 4 years | AS 45.02.725 |
| Sealed instruments and judgments | 10 years | AS 09.10.040 |
A caution about a common misreading: Alaska's 10-year catch-all statute, AS 09.10.100, applies only to actions not otherwise provided for. Ordinary consumer debts are contract liabilities covered by the 3-year rule in AS 09.10.053, so a collector claiming a 10-year window on an ordinary account is overstating its position.
The payment restart rule
AS 09.10.210 provides that when a past-due payment of principal or interest is made on any evidence of indebtedness, the limitations clock starts over from the date of that payment. A $20 payment on a two-year-old account gives the collector three more years to sue. An acknowledgment or new promise, by contrast, only counts if it is in a writing signed by the debtor, per AS 09.10.200, and that statute expressly does not alter the effect of a payment. Whether a payment can revive a claim that has already fully expired, as opposed to restarting one still running, is not answered by the statute text, so treat any payment on old debt as potentially clock-restarting and get advice before paying anything on a debt near or past the 3-year mark.
Time-barred is not erased. Collectors may still request payment on a time-barred debt, but under Regulation F, 12 CFR 1006.26, a debt collector must not sue or threaten suit on it. Credit reporting runs on its own separate clock of roughly seven years.
What Debt Collectors Can and Cannot Do
The federal FDCPA fully applies in Alaska: third-party collectors cannot misrepresent the amount or legal status of a debt or threaten action they cannot legally take, 15 U.S.C. 1692e, and Regulation F governs call frequency and required validation notices. Alaska also has its own Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, enforced by the Alaska Attorney General, which can reach abusive collection conduct. Complaints can go to the CFPB or the state Attorney General's consumer protection unit.
Car Repossession Rules
Alaska adopted the standard UCC self-help rule at AS 45.29.609: after default, the lender may take the vehicle without a court order if it can do so without a breach of the peace. There is no general Alaska statute requiring advance notice or a cure period before repossession of a financed car. Alaska's reinstatement right, AS 45.35.050, applies to lease-purchase agreements, not standard auto loans.

After repossession, the sale must be commercially reasonable and you can be pursued for a deficiency, subject to the UCC's rules on how the deficiency is calculated. For servicemembers, the federal SCRA, 50 U.S.C. 3952, requires a court order to repossess property financed before military service.
If You Are Being Garnished or Sued in Alaska
- Answer the lawsuit. Default judgments are how most private-creditor garnishments happen. An answer forces the collector to prove the debt, the amount, and that it sued within the 3-year window.
- Raise the statute of limitations as a defense. With Alaska's short 3-year period, many collection suits on ordinary consumer debt are filed late. The defense is waived if you do not raise it.
- Claim your exemptions. The $473/$743 weekly earnings exemption and the $1,890/$2,970 liquid-asset exemption are claimed through the court's exemption process after you receive notice of a levy or garnishment. Deadlines are short; act immediately.
- Do not make a payment without understanding AS 09.10.210. A partial payment restarts the clock.
- Consider bankruptcy for unpayable debt. The automatic stay stops garnishment immediately, and for people facing multiple judgments it is often the only complete solution.
Overwhelmed by debt? Get a free bankruptcy consultation
Bankruptcy can stop foreclosure, wage garnishment, and creditor calls, and which debts you can clear and what property you keep depend on your state's exemptions. Get a free, confidential consultation with a bankruptcy attorney to understand your options. There is no obligation.
Information last verified on 2026-08-12. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Related Resources
- Debt Collection Laws by State
- How to Stop Wage Garnishment
- Statute of Limitations on Debt
- Can Social Security Be Garnished?
- Alaska Bankruptcy Laws
Last updated: 2026-08-12.
More Alaska Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
How much of my paycheck is protected from garnishment in Alaska?
$473 of weekly net earnings is exempt, or $743 per week if your earnings are the sole support of your household, under AS 09.38.030 and 09.38.050 as adjusted by 8 AAC 95.030. Amounts above that are garnishable, subject to the federal 25% ceiling.
Can my wages be garnished in Alaska without a court judgment?
Yes, for two kinds of debt. Alaska's child support agency can issue an order to withhold and deliver without prior notice to the obligor under AS 25.27.250, and a support order it enforces can carry an agency income withholding order under AS 25.27.062. Defaulted student loans can also be garnished administratively under 20 U.S.C. 1095a, with notice and a hearing right but no lawsuit. Private creditors and debt collectors do have to sue you and win a judgment first.
What is the statute of limitations on credit card debt in Alaska?
Three years under AS 09.10.053, which covers contract liabilities whether written or oral. Promissory notes get 6 years and UCC sale-of-goods contracts get 4, but ordinary card and account debt falls under the 3-year rule.
Does making a payment restart the debt clock in Alaska?
Yes. AS 09.10.210 restarts the limitations period from the date of a past-due payment of principal or interest. A new promise to pay only counts if made in a signed writing under AS 09.10.200.
Can a collector claim a 10-year window to sue on my debt in Alaska?
For ordinary consumer debt, no. The 10-year catch-all in AS 09.10.100 applies only to claims not otherwise covered, and consumer debts are contract liabilities under the 3-year rule in AS 09.10.053.
Is money in my bank account protected from garnishment in Alaska?
Alaska exempts $1,890 per month in liquid assets, including deposits, or $2,970 for a sole household earner, for debtors not paid on a regular schedule. Directly deposited federal benefits also get an automatic two-month shield under 31 CFR Part 212. Exemptions must be claimed promptly through the court.
Can my car be repossessed without notice in Alaska?
Generally yes. Alaska's UCC provision, AS 45.29.609, allows repossession after default without a court order or advance notice, provided there is no breach of the peace. Alaska has no general cure-notice statute for auto loans.
Updates
Clarified that the requirement to sue and win a judgment before garnishing wages applies to private creditors and debt collectors, and added the two exceptions that reach a paycheck administratively: child support withholding under AS 25.27.062 and AS 25.27.250, and defaulted student loans under 20 U.S.C. 1095a.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Alaska Statutes, Title 9. Code of Civil Procedure, Chapter 38. Alaska Exemptions Act
§ 09.38.030Exemption of earnings and liquid assetsIn force
(a) Except as provided in (b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section and AS 09.38.050, an individual debtor is entitled to an exemption of the individual debtor's weekly net earnings not to exceed $350. The weekly net earnings of an individual are determined by subtracting from the weekly gross earnings all sums required by law or court order to be withheld. The weekly net earnings of an individual paid on a monthly basis are determined by subtracting from the monthly gross earnings of the individual all sums required by law or court order to be withheld and dividing the remainder by 4.3. The weekly net earnings of an individual paid on a semi-monthly basis are determined by subtracting from the semi-monthly gross earnings all sums required by law or court order to be withheld and dividing the remainder by 2.17. (b) An individual who does not receive earnings either weekly, semi-monthly, or monthly is entitled to a maximum exemption for the aggregate value of cash and other liquid assets available in any month of $1,400, except as provided in (f) and (h) of this section and in AS 09.38.050.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Alaska Statutes, Title 9. Code of Civil Procedure, Chapter 10. Limitations of Actions
§ 09.10.053Contract actions to be brought in three yearsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Unless the action is commenced within three years, a person may not bring an action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, except as provided in AS 09.10.040, or as otherwise provided by law, or, except if the provisions of this section are waived by contract.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 51 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Robinson v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. (Alaska Supreme Court 2019, 442 P.3d 763)“…could be granted). See AS 09.10.070(a). See AS 09.10.053. Clemensen v. Providence Alaska…”
- Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP (Alaska Supreme Court 2013, 306 P.3d 1264)“…14- 6804 AS 09.10.053.16 We have held previously that actions…”
- Christianson v. Conrad-Houston Insurance (Alaska Supreme Court 2014)“…rguing that Christianson’s malpractice action was barred by AS 09.10.053 because the statute of limitations bega…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alaska Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 09.10.210Past due paymentsIn force
When a past due payment of principal or interest is made upon any evidence of indebtedness, the running of the time within which an action may be commenced starts from the time the last payment is made.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1999
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Osbourne v. Buckman (Alaska Supreme Court 1999, 993 P.2d 409)“…P.2d 777, 782 (Alaska 1968). 4 . See AS 09.10.210. 5 . Dwor…”
- International Investors v. Business Park Fund (Alaska Supreme Court 1999, 991 P.2d 219)“…riting of continuing contract starts statute running anew); AS 09.10.210 (part payment starts statute running an…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 09.10.200Acknowledgment or promiseIn force
No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract to take the case out of the operation of this chapter unless the acknowledgment or promise is contained in writing, signed by the party to be charged, and, as to instruments affecting real estate, acknowledged and recorded in the office of the recorder of the district where the original contract was filed or recorded. This section does not alter the effect of any payment of principal or interest.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Walker v. White (Alaska Supreme Court 1980, 618 P.2d 561)“…limitations. The controlling provision on this question is AS 09.10.200, which provides, in relevant part:…”
- Bliss v. Bobich (Alaska Supreme Court 1998, 971 P.2d 141)“…o other theories to support a third year of damages. Citing AS 09.10.200, they theorize that, by signing “payrol…”
- Barber v. State, Department of Corrections (Alaska Supreme Court 2017, 393 P.3d 412)“…es the violation of a state or federal right as required by AS 09.10.200(a).” 51 See AS 09.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 09.10.100Other actions in 10 yearsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
An action for a cause not otherwise provided for may be commenced within 10 years after the cause of action has accrued.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Heustess v. Kelley-Heustess (Alaska Supreme Court 2011, 259 P.3d 462)“…1991 to 1997 because the 10-year statute of limitations in AS 09.10.100 bars the claim. Bonnie contends that th…”
- Krause v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Alaska Supreme Court 2010, 229 P.3d 168)“…er statutes of limitations-ten years under AS 09.10.0830 or AS 09.10.100, or six years under AS 09.10.050-apply.…”
- Bradshaw v. State, Department of Administration, Division of Motor Vehicles (Alaska Supreme Court 2010, 224 P.3d 118)“…rgues that the ten-year statute of limitations contained in AS 09.10.100 prevents the state from enforcing the $…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Alaska Statutes, Title 45. Trade and Commerce, Chapter 29. Secured Transactions
§ 45.29.609Secured party's right to take possession after defaultIn force
(a) After default, a secured party (1) may take possession of the collateral; and (2) without removal, may render equipment unusable and dispose of collateral on a debtor's premises under AS 45.29.610. (b) A secured party may proceed under subsection (a) of this section (1) in accordance with judicial process; or (2) without judicial process if it proceeds without breach of the peace. (c) If so agreed and, in any event, after default, a secured party may require the debtor to assemble the collateral and make it available to the secured party at a place to be designated by the secured party that is reasonably convenient to both parties.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Alaska Trustee, LLC v. Ambridge (Alaska Supreme Court 2016, 372 P.3d 207)“…42 See U.C.C. §§ 9-609, 9-610; accord AS 45.29.609(a)(1) (“After default, a secured party…”
- Crowley v. N. Aviation, LLC (Alaska Supreme Court 2019, 441 P.3d 407)“…notice prior to disposition of property seized pursuant to AS 45.29.609." The court found that Crowley did not…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 15
§ 1673Restriction on garnishmentIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (b) and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206(a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable, whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2). The restrictions of subsection (a) do not apply in the case of any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review. any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11. any debt due for any State or Federal tax.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 450 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have read the section 1673 garnishment cap narrowly. Kokoszka v. Belford (1974) held that "disposable earnings" reaches periodic compensation and not an income tax refund, so the cap did not keep a refund out of the bankruptcy estate. Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank (2015) held section 1673 creates no private right of action.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 439 U.S. 572)“…and amended § 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1673 (b), to pre-empt state law by limiting…”
- Kokoszka v. Belford (Supreme Court of the United States 1974, 417 U.S. 642)✓A bankrupt argued the 25 percent garnishment cap exempted 75 percent of his $250.90 income tax refund from the trustee; the Supreme Court held Section 1673's limit covers periodic compensation, not a tax refund, so the whole refund passed to the estate.
- Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank (District Court, S.D. New York 2015, 91 F. Supp. 3d 491)✓After a Florida garnishment froze a disabled borrower's bank account holding disability benefits, she sued under Section 1673; the court held the section creates no private right of action and is enforced by the Secretary of Labor, and dismissed the claim.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Bankruptcy in South Dakota (2026): Exemptions & Means Test, Alabama Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Arkansas Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession
§ 1674Restriction on discharge from employment by reason of garnishmentIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
No employer may discharge any employee by reason of the fact that his earnings have been subjected to garnishment for any one indebtedness. Whoever willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 48 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal appeals courts have held that 15 U.S.C. 1674 gives no private right of action to an employee fired over a garnishment. Smith v. Cotton Brothers Baking Co., Inc. (1980) found no implied civil remedy, and Le Vick v. Skaggs Companies, Inc. (1983) agreed, leaving enforcement to the Secretary of Labor under Section 1676.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- James E. Le Vick v. Skaggs Companies, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 1983, 701 F.2d 777)✓An employee fired after his wages were garnished sued his employer under 15 U.S.C. 1674(a); the Ninth Circuit declined to follow its own Stewart precedent and held Congress created no private right of action, leaving enforcement to the Secretary of Labor.
- Hodgson v. Cleveland Municipal Court (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1971, 326 F. Supp. 419)✓The Secretary of Labor argued federal garnishment law preempted Ohio's narrower anti-discharge provision; the court found no showing that 15 U.S.C. 1674, a self-enforcing criminal section, was frustrated by the Ohio statute, and no justiciable controversy under it.
- Reginald O. Wallace v. Debron Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1974, 494 F.2d 674)✓A Black welder was fired under a rule barring two garnishments in a year; reversing summary judgment on his Title VII disparate-impact claim, the Eighth Circuit read 15 U.S.C. 1674 as preventing discharge for one indebtedness, not authorizing it for others.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Debt Collection Laws: Garnishment Caps, the 10-Day Repo Notice, and Debt Time Limits, Arizona Debt Collection Laws: The 10% Garnishment Cap, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Hawaii Debt Collection Laws: The Bracket Garnishment Formula, 6-Year Debt Limit, and Repossession
§ 1692eFalse or misleading representationsIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof. The false representation of— the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt. The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney. The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action. The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,533 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts read Section 1692e through the least sophisticated consumer test. Christ Clomon v. Philip D. Jackson (1993) held that mass-mailed letters bearing an attorney signature, sent without file review, violated subsections (3) and (10); Gonzalez v. Kay (2009) held a back-page disclaimer did not defeat the claim on a motion to dismiss.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2003, 321 F.3d 292)✓Debt letters went out on law firm letterhead after an attorney reviewed only a file showing the debt was outstanding; the Second Circuit held that merely being told by a client that a debt is overdue is not enough attorney involvement, and vacated summary judgment.
- William C. Lewis v. Acb Business Services, Inc., (96-3093/3498), American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. James P. Connors, (96-3498) (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1998, 135 F.3d 389)✓A collection letter told the debtor to contact 'M. Hall,' a name no employee at the agency actually used; the Sixth Circuit held the alias was not a false or deceptive means under 1692e(10) because the account had been assigned to a real representative and no harm was shown.
- Gonzalez v. Kay (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2009, 577 F.3d 600)✓A law firm collecting a $448.97 phone debt sent an unsigned letter on its letterhead with the disclaimer of attorney review only on the back; the Fifth Circuit held the least sophisticated consumer might think a lawyer was involved and reversed dismissal of the 1692e claim.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Statute of Limitations on Debt: The 50-State Payment-Revival Table, California Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Colorado Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession
Code of Federal Regulations Title 12
§ 1006.26Collection of time-barred debts.In forcecited in 37 of our articles
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section: (1) Statute of limitations means the period prescribed by applicable law for bringing a legal action against the consumer to collect a debt. (2) Time-barred debt means a debt for which the applicable statute of limitations has expired. (b) Legal actions and threats of legal actions prohibited. A debt collector must not bring or threaten to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt. This paragraph (b) does not apply to proofs of claim filed in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hanover v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (2024) dismissed FDCPA claims built on 12 CFR 1006.26(b), reasoning it bars only collection of time-barred debts and the loans at issue were not time barred. Raja v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (2025) dismissed a Regulation F claim because nonjudicial foreclosure is not covered by the FDCPA.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hanover v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2024)✓A borrower claimed a servicer's letter and billing statement lacked language required by 12 CFR 1006.26(b); the court granted the servicer summary judgment, since the rule only bars collecting time-barred debts and it had already found her HELOC and mortgage enforceable.
- Raja v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2025)✓Pro se homeowners alleged a servicer and foreclosure attorneys pursued a time-barred, discharged second mortgage in violation of 12 CFR 1006.26(b); the court dismissed that claim, holding parties carrying out a nonjudicial foreclosure are not FDCPA debt collectors.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Debt Collection Laws: Garnishment Limits, Debt Deadlines, and Repossession, Maine Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Michigan Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession
Code of Federal Regulations Title 31
§ 212.3Definitions.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply. Account means an account, including a master account or sub account, at a financial institution and to which an electronic payment may be directly routed. Account holder means a natural person against whom a garnishment order is issued and whose name appears in a financial institution's records as the direct or beneficial owner of an account. Account review means the process of examining deposits in an account to determine if a benefit agency has deposited a benefit payment into the account during the lookback period. Benefit agency means the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), or the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB). Benefit payment means a Federal benefit payment referred to in § 212.2(b) paid by direct deposit to an account with the character “XX” encoded in positions 54 and 55 of the Company Entry Description field and the number “2” encoded in the Originator Status Code field of the Batch Header Record of the direct deposit entry.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Roger Hawes v. William Stephens (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2020, 964 F.3d 412)“…Federal or State law to engage in the business of banking.” 31 C.F.R. § 212.3. TDCJ possesses no such charter.…”
- Collect Access LLC v. Hernandez (In Re Hernandez) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit 2012, 483 B.R. 713)“…exempt funds. [See 31 CFR 24 § 212.1 et seq.; see also 31 CFR § 212.3 (definitions)].” Hon. 25 Alan M. Ahar…”
- Gates v. MCT Group, Inc. (District Court, S.D. California 2015, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1182)“…eral financial regulations from levy or garnishment. See 31 C.F.R. § 212.3 and § 212.5(b) and (c). Because no pay…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can Social Security Be Garnished? What Section 407 Actually Protects
United States Code Title 50
§ 3952Protection under installment contracts for purchase or leaseIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
After a servicemember enters military service, a contract by the servicemember for— the purchase of real or personal property (including a motor vehicle); or the lease or bailment of such property, may not be rescinded or terminated for a breach of terms of the contract occurring before or during that person’s military service, nor may the property be repossessed for such breach without a court order. This section applies only to a contract for which a deposit or installment has been paid by the servicemember before the servicemember enters military service. A person who knowingly resumes possession of property in violation of subsection (a), or in violation of section 3918 of this title, or who knowingly attempts to do so, shall be fined as provided in title 18, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ditech Holding Corporation (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2025)“…d on, or sold during or within a year after active service. 50 U.S.C. §§ 3952, 3953. Claimant states that he re…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Louisiana Debt Collection Laws: Prescription, Garnishment, and Repossession, Maryland Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Massachusetts Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 8 AAC 95.030, Adjusted exemption amounts for earnings and liquid assets (Alaska Administrative Code)(law.cornell.edu)
- Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, Administrative Wage Garnishment Worksheet (applying the $473 exemption)(acpe.alaska.gov).gov
- 15 U.S.C. 1673, Federal restriction on garnishment (25%/30-times test)(govinfo.gov).gov
- 12 CFR 1006.26, Regulation F prohibition on suits and threats of suit on time-barred debt(ecfr.gov).gov
- 31 CFR Part 212, Garnishment of accounts containing federal benefit payments(ecfr.gov).gov
- AS 09.10.053, Three-Year Limitation on Contract and Liability Actions(akleg.gov).gov
- AS 09.10.100, Ten-Year Catch-All Limitation (Actions Not Otherwise Provided For)(akleg.gov).gov
- AS 09.10.200, Acknowledgment or New Promise Must Be in Signed Writing(akleg.gov).gov
- AS 09.10.210, Payment Restarts the Limitations Period(akleg.gov).gov
- AS 45.29.609, Secured Party's Right to Take Possession After Default(akleg.gov).gov
- AS 25.27.250, Order to Withhold and Deliver (agency may issue without prior notice to the obligor)(akleg.gov)
- AS 25.27.062, Income Withholding Order for Support (judgment, court order, or order of the agency)(akleg.gov)
- 20 U.S.C. 1095a, Wage garnishment requirement for defaulted student loans (15 percent of disposable pay, no court judgment required)(govinfo.gov)