Arizona
Arizona Debt Collection Laws: The 10% Garnishment Cap, 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

Arizona quietly became one of the most debtor-protective states in the country in December 2022, and a large share of what the internet says about garnishment here is now out of date. Before any of it matters, though, the process truth comes first: a collector on ordinary consumer debt must sue you, win a judgment, and obtain a writ of garnishment before your employer withholds a cent. Most garnishments happen because the person sued never answered and a default judgment was entered. Answering the summons is the single highest-value thing you can do.
Wage Garnishment in Arizona: The 10% Rule
ARS 33-1131(B), as amended by the voter-approved Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act (Proposition 209), sets the cap for ordinary judgment creditors: the garnishable amount for any workweek may not exceed the lesser of
- 10 percent of your disposable earnings for that week, or
- the amount by which your weekly disposable earnings exceed 60 times the applicable minimum hourly wage, using the highest of the federal, state, or local minimum wage in effect where you work.
Disposable earnings means what remains after legally required withholdings such as taxes. Because Arizona's minimum wage is well above the federal one, the 60-times floor protects a substantial weekly amount before the 10 percent test even applies, and workers in cities with higher local minimum wages get a higher floor still.
On a showing of extreme economic hardship, established by clear and convincing evidence, the court may reduce the garnishment to 5 percent of disposable earnings. That reduction is not in ARS 33-1131, which contains no hardship provision. It comes from the companion garnishment-procedure statute, ARS 12-1598.10(F), as amended by Proposition 209, and the statute has the court decide it at the hearing on the writ. Arizona has no separate head-of-household exemption; the hardship reduction is the functional equivalent, and it must be requested from the court.
Support obligations run on a different track: for court-ordered support, ARS 33-1131(C) exempts one half of disposable earnings, mirroring the much higher federal support limits.
Ignore the 25% figure
Proposition 209 amended ARS 12-1598.10 along with ARS 33-1131, and the current version of that section recites 10 percent reducible to not less than 5 percent. The legislature's website, however, still posts the superseded pre-2022 version of ARS 12-1598.10, which recites 25 percent reducible to not less than 15 percent, alongside the Proposition 209 version. That superseded text does not govern. In Silence v. Betts (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024), the court held that wages earned on or after December 5, 2022 are garnished at a maximum of 10 percent, and Arizona court garnishment instructions, including the Maricopa County Justice Courts' earnings garnishment guide, compute at 10 percent with the 5 percent hardship reduction. If a collector or an employer is applying 25 percent, the withholding is almost certainly unlawful and worth challenging immediately.
Firing protection
Only the federal rule was located for Arizona: 15 U.S.C. 1674 bars discharging an employee because of garnishment for any one debt. We found no Arizona statute extending protection to multiple garnishments.
Bank Account Protections
ARS 33-1126(A)(9) exempts $5,000 held in a single account at any one financial institution as its statutory base. The statute directs an annual inflation adjustment each January 1 beginning in 2024, and a $5,600 figure for 2026 is well corroborated by secondary sources, including an NCLC bank-garnishment-statutes appendix, tracking a $5,000-base-2024 to roughly $5,400-2025 to roughly $5,600-2026 CPI-adjustment progression; azcourts.gov's official table itself could not be confirmed live this session, so treat $5,600 as reported and secondary-sourced, and check the current adjusted amount published by the Arizona courts before relying on a precise number. The exemption protects one account, so consolidating funds matters.

On top of that, directly deposited federal benefits such as Social Security carry the automatic federal shield of 31 CFR Part 212: the bank itself must protect the last two months of benefit deposits, with no filing required. Amounts above the protected figures can be frozen, and exemptions for them must be claimed through the court promptly after notice.
Statute of Limitations on Debt in Arizona
| Debt type | Limitations period | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Credit card debt | 6 years (explicit) | ARS 12-548(A)(2) |
| Written contract executed in Arizona | 6 years | ARS 12-548(A)(1) |
| Oral debt, stated or open account | 3 years | ARS 12-543 |
| Promissory note | 6 years from the due date | ARS 47-3118 |
Arizona is one of the few states that answers the credit card question by statute: ARS 12-548(A)(2) expressly gives credit card debt a 6-year period, so there is no fight over whether a card is a written contract or an open account. The same statute contains a choice-of-law clause providing that if another jurisdiction's limitations period conflicts, Arizona's 12-548 applies.
For open accounts, no item is barred so long as any item of the account was incurred within three years before suit, which can extend the practical window on a running account.
Revival: writing only
Under ARS 12-508, an acknowledgment takes a case out of the statute of limitations only if it is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The statute does not make partial payment a revival method on its own, and whether Arizona courts treat a payment as an implied acknowledgment is not settled enough to state as a rule, so the safe assumption cuts both ways: do not sign anything acknowledging an old debt without advice, and do not assume a payment is risk-free either.
Time-barred is not erased. A collector may still ask you to pay, but under Regulation F, 12 CFR 1006.26, a debt collector must not sue or threaten to sue on time-barred debt. Credit reporting runs its own roughly seven-year clock regardless of the limitations period.
Medical Debt: Arizona's Extra Protections
Proposition 209 was aimed substantially at medical debt, and two of its pieces matter here. First, the 10 percent garnishment cap applies to medical judgments the same as other consumer debts. Second, ARS 44-1201 caps interest on medical debt at the lesser of a rate tied to the one-year Treasury yield or 3 percent per year, which applies to judgments on medical debt and dramatically slows the growth of a medical judgment compared to ordinary judgment interest.
What Debt Collectors Can and Cannot Do
The federal FDCPA applies fully: 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 contact frequency and validation notices. Arizona also licenses collection agencies through the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions, which accepts complaints, as do the CFPB and the Arizona Attorney General.

Car Repossession Rules
Arizona's version of the UCC self-help rule, ARS 47-9609, allows a secured lender to take the vehicle after default without a court order, provided it proceeds without a breach of the peace. The statute does not define breach of the peace; as a practical matter, entering a locked garage or continuing over your in-person objection are the classic danger zones, and how Arizona courts draw the line is fact-specific.
We located no Arizona statute requiring advance notice or a cure period before repossession of a financed vehicle. After repossession, the sale must be commercially reasonable and any deficiency claim is subject to the UCC's calculation rules. Servicemembers whose contracts predate military service are protected by the federal SCRA, 50 U.S.C. 3952, which requires a court order for repossession.
If You Are Being Garnished or Sued in Arizona
- Answer the lawsuit. Default judgments are the engine of garnishment. An answer forces the collector to prove its claim and its timeliness.
- Check the percentage. If a garnishment computes at 25 percent, it is applying pre-Prop-209 law. Object through the court that issued the writ and point to ARS 33-1131(B).
- Request the hardship reduction if you need it. Under ARS 12-1598.10(F), the court can cut the garnishment from 10 percent to as low as 5 percent of disposable earnings on clear and convincing evidence that you or your family would suffer extreme economic hardship. Raise it at the hearing on the writ.
- Raise the statute of limitations. Card debt older than six years from default, or oral and open-account debt older than three, is likely time-barred, and the defense is waived if not raised.
- Protect your bank account. Know that one account at one institution carries the $5,000-base exemption, and claim exemptions immediately when a levy notice arrives.
- Consider bankruptcy for unpayable debt. The automatic stay stops garnishment at filing, and for multiple judgments it is often the only complete answer.
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?
- Arizona Statute of Limitations
- Arizona Bankruptcy Laws
Last updated: 2026-08-12.
More Arizona Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
How much of my paycheck can be garnished in Arizona?
For ordinary consumer debts, the lesser of 10% of disposable earnings or the amount above 60 times the highest applicable minimum wage, under ARS 33-1131(B) as amended by Proposition 209. Under a separate statute, ARS 12-1598.10(F), the court can reduce the withholding to 5% on clear and convincing evidence of extreme economic hardship. Support orders follow different, higher limits.
Why do some sources say Arizona garnishment is 25%?
That was the pre-2022 rule. Proposition 209 amended both ARS 33-1131 and the procedural garnishment statute ARS 12-1598.10, but the legislature's website still posts the superseded pre-2022 version of ARS 12-1598.10, reciting 25%, alongside the current Proposition 209 version reciting 10%. Arizona courts apply the 10% cap to wages earned on or after December 5, 2022, as the Court of Appeals confirmed in Silence v. Betts (2024).
What is the statute of limitations on credit card debt in Arizona?
Six years, explicitly, under ARS 12-548(A)(2). Arizona is one of the few states whose statute names credit card debt directly, and it includes a choice-of-law clause applying the Arizona period even if another state's shorter or longer period would otherwise govern.
Does making a payment restart the statute of limitations in Arizona?
Arizona's revival statute, ARS 12-508, requires a signed written acknowledgment to take a debt out of the statute of limitations, and it does not name partial payment as a revival method. How courts treat payments is not settled enough to rely on, so get advice before paying or signing anything on an old debt.
How much money in my bank account is protected in Arizona?
A statutory base of $5,000 in a single account at one financial institution under ARS 33-1126(A)(9), with annual inflation adjustments since 2024 raising the current figure to a secondary-sourced but well-corroborated $5,600 as of 2026. Directly deposited federal benefits get an additional automatic two-month shield under federal rule 31 CFR Part 212.
Can my car be repossessed without notice in Arizona?
Generally yes. ARS 47-9609 permits repossession after default without a court order or advance notice, as long as the repossession happens without a breach of the peace. Arizona has no statutory cure period before auto repossession.
Is there a cap on medical debt interest in Arizona?
Yes. Under ARS 44-1201 as amended by Proposition 209, interest on medical debt is capped at the lesser of a Treasury-yield-based rate or 3% per year, including on judgments.
Updates
Corrected the statutory source of Arizona's 5% extreme-economic-hardship garnishment reduction to ARS 12-1598.10(F), which the article had placed under ARS 33-1131, and clarified that Proposition 209 did amend ARS 12-1598.10 even though the legislature's website still posts the superseded pre-2022 version of that section alongside the current one.
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.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 33 (Property), Chapter 8 (HOMESTEAD AND PERSONAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION), Article 2 (Personal Property Exemption)
§ 33-1131Definition; wages; salary; compensationIn force
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies) A. For the purposes of this section, "disposable earnings" means that remaining portion of a debtor's wages, salary or compensation for his personal services, including bonuses and commissions, or otherwise, and includes payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program or deferred compensation plan, after deducting from such earnings those amounts required by law to be withheld. B. Except as provided in subsection C, the maximum part of the disposable earnings of a debtor for any workweek that is subject to process may not exceed ten percent of disposable earnings for that week or the amount by which disposable earnings for that week exceed sixty times the applicable minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable, whichever is less. The applicable minimum hourly wage is the minimum wage required by federal, state or local law, whichever is highest. C. The exemptions provided in subsection B do not apply in the case of any order for the support of any person. In such case, one-half of the disposable earnings of a debtor for any pay period is exempt from process. D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes (2004) held section 33-1131(C) exempts disposable earnings from process only and does not cap the support a court may order. Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith (1995) held the exemption does not follow wages once they are disbursed into the debtor's bank account.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Marriage of Fuentes v. Fuentes (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2004, 209 Ariz. 51)✓A divorcing husband argued that child support plus spousal maintenance of $2,450 could not exceed half his $4,378 monthly net income under section 33-1131(C); the court held the statute exempts earnings from process only and does not cap what a court may order as support.
- Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1995, 184 Ariz. 181)✓A law firm garnished a former client's bank account holding deposited wages; the court held the 25 percent limit on garnishing disposable earnings in section 33-1131(B) does not follow the money once an employer disburses it, because it then becomes monies rather than earnings.
- Argonaut Insurance v. Lyons (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1988, 159 Ariz. 267)✓A workers' compensation carrier argued that lost-wage benefits were exempt from a child support wage assignment; the court affirmed reaching them, reading section 33-1131(C) through the assignment statute to exempt only half the obligor's disposable earnings from process.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 33-1126Money benefits or proceeds; exceptionIn force
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies) A. The following property of a debtor is exempt from execution, attachment or sale on any process issued from any court: 1. All money received by or payable to a surviving spouse or child on the life of a deceased spouse, parent or legal guardian, of not more than $20,000. 2. The earnings of the minor child of a debtor or the proceeds of these earnings by reason of any liability of the debtor not contracted for the special benefit of the minor child. 3. All monies received by or payable to a person entitled to receive child support or spousal maintenance pursuant to a court order. 4.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Frazer, Ryan, Goldberg, Keyt & Lawless v. Smith (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1995, 184 Ariz. 181)“…t contained $3,500.07 and froze all but $150.00 pursuant to AR.S. § 33-1126. 1 Smith requested a heari…”
- Shah v. Baloch (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2017, 418 P.3d 902)“…on or attaching a judgment debtor's retirement account. See A.R.S. § 33-1126(B) (2017) (exempting from attachment "m…”
- In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins (Arizona Supreme Court 2024, 544 P.3d 64)“…on 209 [(“Prop. 209”)] repealed or affected the validity of A.R.S. § 33-1126(A)(11) [(“subsection (A)(11)”)].” ¶2…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12 (Courts and Civil Proceedings), Chapter 5 (LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS), Article 3 (Personal Actions)
§ 12-548Contract in writing for debt; six year limitation; choice of lawIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. An action for debt shall be commenced and prosecuted within six years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, if the indebtedness is evidenced by or founded on either of the following: 1. A contract in writing that is executed in this state. 2. A credit card as defined in section 13-2101, paragraph 3, subdivision (a). B. If there is a conflict between another jurisdiction and this state relating to the statute of limitations for a debt action as described in subsection A of this section, this section applies.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 146 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Zuckerman v. Transamerica Insurance (Arizona Supreme Court 1982, 133 Ariz. 139)“…h ordinarily applies to actions on written contracts. See A.R.S. § 12-548; Eureka-Security Fire & Marine Insuran…”
- WJ Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Company (Arizona Supreme Court 1975, 112 Ariz. 285)“…one-year limitation and therefore the applicable statute is A.R.S. § 12-548 providing for a six-year statute of lim…”
- Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1978, 118 Ariz. 452)“…hat the obligation is barred by the statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-548). We agree with the appellant, and, the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 12-543Oral debt; stated or open account; relief on ground of fraud or mistake; three year limitationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
There shall be commenced and prosecuted within three years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions: 1. For debt where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing. 2. Upon stated or open accounts other than such mutual and current accounts as concern the trade of merchandise between merchant and merchant, their factors or agents, but no item of a stated or open account shall be barred so long as any item thereof has been incurred within three years immediately prior to the bringing of an action thereon. 3. For relief on the ground of fraud or mistake, which cause of action shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 165 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Arizona Supreme Court 1995, 182 Ariz. 586)“…eved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake." A.R.S. § 12-543(3). *592 This is that sort of case.…”
- Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2015, 238 Ariz. 357)“…Circuit had already ruled that the analogous state law was A.R.S. § 12-543, Arizona’s fraud statute. The trial cou…”
- Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1984, 141 Ariz. 520)“…ading “Contract statutes versus tort statutes” (in Arizona, A.R.S. § 12-543 or A.R.S. § 12 — 548 versus A.R.S. § 12…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12 (Courts and Civil Proceedings), Chapter 5 (LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS), Article 1 (General Provisions)
§ 12-508Effect of acknowledgment upon barred actionIn force
When an action is barred by limitation no acknowledgment of the justness of the claim made subsequent to the time it became due shall be admitted in evidence to take the action out of the operation of the law, unless the acknowledgment is in writing and signed by the party to be charged thereby.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cheatham v. Sahuaro Collection Service, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1978, 118 Ariz. 452)“…n. In Re Hollingshead, supra. Our statute, A.R.S. § 12-508 (1956), is similar to Lord Tenterden’s…”
- Freeman v. Wilson (Arizona Supreme Court 1971, 107 Ariz. 271)“…has been barred by a statute of limitations is codified in A.R.S. § 12-508, wherein it is provided that when suit…”
- De Anza Land and Leisure Corp. v. Raineri (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1983, 137 Ariz. 262)“…as to remove the applicable 6-year statute of limitations. A.R.S. § 12-508; John W. Masury & Son v. Bisbee…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 44 (Trade and Commerce), Chapter 9 (TRADE PRACTICES GENERALLY), Article 1 (Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to Loans)
§ 44-1201Rate of interest for loan or indebtedness; interest on judgments; definitionsIn force
A. Interest on any loan, indebtedness or other obligation shall be as follows: 1. The maximum interest rate on medical debt shall be the lesser of the following: (a) The annual rate equal to the weekly average one-year constant maturity treasury yield, as published by the board of governors of the federal reserve system, for the calendar week preceding the date when the consumer was first provided with a bill, or (b) Three percent a year. The maximum interest rate provided pursuant to this paragraph also applies to any judgments on medical debt. 2. For any loan, indebtedness or obligation other than medical debt, interest shall be at the rate of ten percent a year, unless a different rate is contracted for in writing, in which event any rate of interest may be agreed to. Interest on any judgment, other than a judgment on medical debt, that is based on a written agreement evidencing a loan, indebtedness or obligation that bears a rate of interest not in excess of the maximum permitted by law shall be at the rate of interest provided in the agreement and shall be specified in the judgment. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 125 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re Marriage of Berger (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1983, 140 Ariz. 156)“…ation provided for a 7% post-judgment interest rate. A.R.S. § 44-1201 provides: § 44-1201. Rate of Int…”
- Imperial Litho/Graphics v. M.J. Enterprises (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1986, 152 Ariz. 68)“…ithout interest. It *74 further asserts that A.R.S. § 44-1201 supports this contention in that it pro…”
- Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Inc. (Arizona Supreme Court 2014, 235 Ariz. 141)“…Civil Procedure 68(g) is interest on an “obligation” under A.R.S. § 44-1201(A) or “interest on a[] judgment” under…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 47 (Uniform Commercial Code), Chapter 9 (SECURED TRANSACTIONS), Article 6 (Default)
§ 47-9609Secured 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 section 47-9610. B. A secured party may proceed under subsection A of this section: 1. Pursuant to 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 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rand v. Porsche Financial Services (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2007, 216 Ariz. 424)“…r purposes of Arizona’s self-help repossession statute, now A.R.S. § 47-9609 (2005), triggering the due process noti…”
- Dayka & Hackett, LLC v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2012, 228 Ariz. 533)“…ntitled to take possession of the collateral after default, A.R.S. § 47-9609, dispose of the collateral, § 47-9610,…”
- Chavez v. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC (District Court, D. Arizona 2024)“…intiff’s motion. 1 default under certain circumstances, A.R.S. § 47-9609 (“Self-Help statute”). (Doc. 8 at 2).…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 15
§ 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, Alabama Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Alaska 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: Arkansas Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Georgia Debt Collection Laws: Garnishment Caps, the 10-Day Repo Notice, and Debt Time Limits, Hawaii Debt Collection Laws: The Bracket Garnishment Formula, 6-Year Debt Limit, and Repossession
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, Maine Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Maryland 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, Michigan Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Colorado 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
- ARS 33-1131, Definition; wages; salary; compensation (Prop 209 10% garnishment cap)(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 33-1126, Money benefits or proceeds; exemption (bank account exemption)(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 12-548, Contract in writing for debt; six year limitation; credit card debt(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 12-543, Oral debt; stated or open account; three year limitation(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 12-508, Effect of acknowledgment or promise in writing(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 47-9609, Secured party's right to take possession after default(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 44-1201, Rate of interest for loan or indebtedness; medical debt interest cap(azleg.gov).gov
- Maricopa County Justice Courts, How to Garnish Earnings instructions (current 10%/5% computation)(justicecourts.maricopa.gov).gov
- 12 CFR 1006.26, Regulation F prohibition on suits and threats of suit on time-barred debt(ecfr.gov).gov
- ARS 12-1598.10, Continuing lien on earnings (2022 Prop. 209 version), subsection F extreme-economic-hardship reduction from ten percent to not less than five percent(azleg.gov)
- Maricopa County Justice Courts, Garnishment of Earnings supplemental instructions (10% max, reducible to 5% on extreme economic hardship, citing Silence v. Betts)(justicecourts.maricopa.gov)