Idaho
Idaho Debt Collection Laws: Garnishment Limits, Debt Deadlines, and Repossession
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 12, 2026). · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

An Idaho creditor cannot garnish your wages just because a bill went unpaid. Outside of child support, tax collection, and federal administrative garnishment for debts like defaulted student loans, the collector must sue you, win a judgment, and then get a writ served on your employer. Most garnishments start with a default judgment entered because the borrower ignored the summons, so answering the lawsuit is the single most valuable thing you can do. Idaho's rules otherwise track the federal baseline closely, with two traps worth knowing: a partial payment on an old debt restarts the clock here, and ordinary Idaho repossessions come with no statutory right-to-cure notice.
How Wage Garnishment Works in Idaho
Idaho copies the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act formula. Under Idaho Code 11-207, a garnishment may not exceed the lesser of 25% of your disposable earnings for the week, or the amount by which those earnings exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage. At the current $7.25 federal rate that floor is $217.50 a week: earnings at or below it cannot be garnished at all, and only the excess is reachable up to the 25% cap. The statute references the federal minimum wage, not Idaho's, and Idaho Code 11-712 carries the identical cap a second time under the heading "Restriction on wage garnishment, maximum," applying by its terms to the aggregate disposable earnings subjected to garnishment in any workweek rather than to continuing garnishments alone. That section also sets the higher federal-style caps for support orders, 50% to 65% depending on dependents and arrears.
Idaho has no head of household or head of family exemption. A separate provision, Idaho Code 11-605(11), exempts wages that have been earned but not yet paid, up to $2,500 in a calendar year, but the statute itself says that exemption does not affect the operation of the 11-207 garnishment cap. On firing, no Idaho statute beyond the federal rule was identified: 15 U.S.C. 1674 forbids discharging an employee over garnishment for any one debt, and that federal protection is what an Idaho worker should rely on.
For state tax debts, the Idaho State Tax Commission holds broad levy and seizure authority under Idaho Code 63-3059, which contains no percentage cap of its own. Reports that the Commission administratively limits wage levies to a fixed percentage could not be verified against a primary source for this article, so do not rely on a specific figure.
Bank Account Protections
A judgment creditor can garnish bank accounts too. Idaho's exemptions must be claimed in the proceeding; there is no self-executing protected-balance rule for ordinary funds. The main tools are the $2,500 earned-but-unpaid wages exemption and a wildcard for tangible personal property up to $1,500 under Idaho Code 11-605, plus category exemptions for benefits. Federal law adds the automatic shield for directly deposited federal benefits: the bank must protect an amount equal to the last two months of Social Security or other covered benefit deposits under 31 CFR Part 212 before freezing anything.

How Long Collectors Have to Sue: Idaho's Statute of Limitations
Idaho's contract deadlines:
- Written contracts: 5 years, under Idaho Code 5-216. Ordinary promissory notes fall here as written instruments.
- Oral contracts: 4 years, under Idaho Code 5-217.
- Open accounts: 4 years by default, but Idaho Code 5-222 starts the clock for mutual open accounts from the last item proved in the account, so active accounts keep the clock moving.
Where credit card debt lands, written versus unwritten, has not been settled by a published Idaho appellate decision that could be identified for this article, so treat any confident one-number answer for Idaho cards with suspicion.
The revival rule is Idaho's biggest trap. Under Idaho Code 5-238, an acknowledgment or new promise revives a debt only if it is in a signed writing, but the same section then provides that any payment of principal or interest is equivalent to a new signed promise to pay the remainder. In plain terms: a $20 payment on a debt that is four years old restarts the limitations clock on the entire balance, no signature required. Collectors know this, which is why requests for a «small good-faith payment» on old debt deserve caution. An expired deadline does not erase the debt, but it does take away the lawsuit, and under federal Regulation F, 12 CFR 1006.26, a collector must not sue or threaten suit on a time-barred debt. Credit reporting is separate: negative marks age off in roughly 7 years under federal law regardless of the limitations period.
For other Idaho case types, see the Idaho statute of limitations guide.
Car Repossession in Idaho
Idaho follows the standard self-help rule in Idaho Code 28-9-609: after default, the lender may take possession of the collateral without a court order if it can do so without a breach of the peace. For regulated consumer credit transactions, the Idaho Credit Code adds a modest overlay in Idaho Code 28-45-108: possession without judicial process is allowed only if it can be taken without entering a dwelling and without force or other breach of the peace.

What Idaho does not have is a general right-to-cure notice. The Credit Code defines when a default is enforceable, a missed payment or a showing that the prospect of payment is significantly impaired, but it requires no advance notice giving you time to catch up before the truck arrives. The one exception is narrow: under the Idaho Title Loan Act, Idaho Code 28-46-507, a title lender must mail a notice to cure and give you 10 days before repossessing the titled vehicle. That protection applies to title loans only, not to ordinary auto financing.
One more Idaho overlay for medical bills: the Idaho Patient Act, Idaho Code sections 48-301 through 48-315, imposes procedural and notice requirements on medical providers before they may pursue extraordinary collection actions, with civil penalties for violations. Its detailed timing rules were not verified for this article, but if a hospital or collector is suing or garnishing over Idaho medical debt, whether those prerequisites were met is worth raising with a lawyer.
Idaho's Rules for the Collection Agencies Themselves
Idaho licenses collectors, not just judgments. Under Idaho Code 26-2223, no one may operate as a collection agency, debt counselor, credit counselor, or credit repair organization in this state without a license from the director, and Idaho Code 26-2222(11) defines that director as the director of the Idaho Department of Finance. An unlicensed outfit calling about an Idaho debt is a problem in itself.
Licensed agencies also owe a statutory conduct duty. Idaho Code 26-2229A(1) requires them to deal openly, fairly, and honestly without deception in their Idaho business. Subsection (2) of the same section lets the director enforce the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 and following, against collection agencies operating under the chapter, so a federal violation is also a state licensing problem.
Junk fees have their own rule. Under Idaho Code 26-2229A(4), a collection agency may not collect interest, charges, fees, or expenses unless a statute expressly authorizes them, a court has allowed or determined them, the underlying agreement expressly provides for them, or they fall within the narrow remaining categories the section lists. If your balance has grown by fees that appear nowhere in the original contract, that is worth raising with the Department of Finance.
If You Are Being Garnished or Sued in Idaho
Work in order. Answer the lawsuit by the deadline in the summons; a default judgment forfeits every defense. If a garnishment has issued, check the math against the 25% and $217.50 limits and claim your exemptions in the proceeding, since Idaho's are not automatic. If the debt is old, count the years before paying anything, because in Idaho even a small payment restarts the clock on the full balance. If a default judgment was entered without proper service, ask the court about setting it aside. And if judgments are stacking beyond what you can live on, bankruptcy's automatic stay stops garnishment immediately; see Idaho bankruptcy laws for how Idaho's exemptions carry into that process.
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
- Statute of Limitations on Debt
- How to Stop Wage Garnishment
- Car Repossession Laws
- Idaho Statute of Limitations
- Idaho Bankruptcy Laws
Last updated: 2026-08-12.
More Idaho Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
How much of my paycheck can be garnished in Idaho?
The lesser of 25% of your weekly disposable earnings or the amount above $217.50, which is 30 times the federal minimum wage, under Idaho Code 11-207. Earnings at or below $217.50 a week cannot be garnished at all. Support orders run under higher caps of 50% to 65%.
Does Idaho have a head of household garnishment exemption?
No. Idaho protects wages through the 25% federal-style formula only. A separate $2,500-per-year exemption covers wages earned but not yet paid under Idaho Code 11-605(11), but by its own terms it does not change the garnishment cap.
How long can a collector sue on a debt in Idaho?
Five years on written contracts under Idaho Code 5-216 and four years on oral contracts under 5-217. Open accounts run four years measured from the last item in the account. No published Idaho appellate decision settling whether credit cards count as written or unwritten could be identified for this article.
Does a partial payment restart the statute of limitations in Idaho?
Yes. Idaho Code 5-238 treats any payment of principal or interest as the equivalent of a signed new promise to pay, restarting the clock on the remaining balance. A bare acknowledgment must be in a signed writing, but a payment needs no writing at all, which makes small payments on old debt genuinely risky.
Does an Idaho lender have to warn me before repossessing my car?
Generally no. Ordinary consumer credit repossession in Idaho requires no advance cure notice; the lender may repossess after default as long as it avoids a breach of the peace and does not enter a dwelling. The exception is title loans, where Idaho Code 28-46-507 requires a mailed notice giving 10 days to cure before repossession.
Do debt collectors have to be licensed in Idaho?
Yes. Idaho Code 26-2223 bars anyone from operating as a collection agency, debt counselor, credit counselor, or credit repair organization in Idaho without a license from the director of the Idaho Department of Finance. Licensees must deal openly, fairly, and honestly without deception under Idaho Code 26-2229A(1), the director may enforce the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against them under 26-2229A(2), and 26-2229A(4) bars fees or interest that no statute, contract, or court order authorizes.
Updates
Added Idaho’s collection agency licensing and conduct rules (Idaho Code 26-2223 and 26-2229A) and corrected the description of Idaho Code 11-712, which caps wage garnishment generally rather than only continuing garnishments.
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.
Idaho Code
§ 11-207Restriction on garnishment — MaximumIn force
11-207. Restriction on garnishment — Maximum. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the maximum amount of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any work week which is subjected to garnishment shall not exceed (a) twenty-five per cent (25%) of his disposable…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State, Department of Health & Welfare Ex Rel. Lisby v. Lisby (1995) held the 55 percent figure in Idaho Code 11-207 caps garnishment of a lump-sum workers compensation award for past-due child support. Hooper v. State (1995) found a prisoner failed to prove any 11-207 protection for commingled, untraced inmate account funds.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hooper v. State (Idaho Court of Appeals 1995, 127 Idaho 945)✓A prisoner claimed Idaho Code 11-207 protected his inmate account after it was seized to satisfy a costs judgment. The court held he failed to prove any entitlement to the exemption because the account mixed prison wages with outside deposits and he attempted no tracing.
- State, Department of Health & Welfare Ex Rel. Lisby v. Lisby (Idaho Supreme Court 1995, 126 Idaho 776)✓A father owing past due child support had a lump sum workers compensation settlement garnished. The court applied Idaho Code 11-207 through the income withholding statute and held 55 percent of the benefits could be reached, with approved attorney fees left out of that base.
- In Re Merrill (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho 2009, 431 B.R. 239)✓A chapter 7 debtor claimed 75 percent of joint bank accounts exempt after her separated husband cashed out his IRA in one payment and deposited it there. The bankruptcy court held Idaho Code 11-207 reaches only periodic pension or retirement payments, so they were not exempt.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 11-605Exemptions of personal property AND DISPOSABLE EARNINGS subject to value limitationsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
11-605. Exemptions of personal property AND DISPOSABLE EARNINGS subject to value limitations. (1) An individual is entitled to exemption of the following property to the extent of a value not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) on any one (1) item of property and not to exceed a total value of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 36 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Powell v. Powell (Idaho Supreme Court 2006, 142 Idaho 815)“…thleen claimed the $3000 exemption in the Jeep provided by Idaho Code § 11-605 (3). Edward contested the exemption pur…”
- In Re Seibold (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho 2006, 351 B.R. 741)“…n her *744 car, a 2001 Chevy Tracker, under Idaho Code § 11-605 (3) on Schedule C. She also listed Lynn…”
- In Re DeHaan (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho 2002, 275 B.R. 375)“…or is seeking more than the $800.00 maximum exemption under Idaho Code Section 11-605(10). 3. Debtor is seeking to exp…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Bankruptcy in Idaho (2026): Exemptions & Means Test
§ 5-238Acknowledgment or new promise — Effect on operation of statute — Effect of partial payment. No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract by which to take the case out of the operation of this chapter, unless the same is contained in some writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby; but any payment of principal or interest is equivalent to a new promise in writing, duly signed, to pay the residue of the debtIn force
5-238. Acknowledgment or new promise — Effect on operation of statute — Effect of partial payment. No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract by which to take the case out of the operation of this chapter, unless the same is contained in some writing, signed…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Monitor Fin., L.C. v. Wildlife Ridge Estates, LLC (Idaho Supreme Court 2019, 164 Idaho 555)“…reclose that deed of trust, for an additional five years. Idaho Code section 5-238 addresses the effect of a partial payme…”
- Montierth v. Dorssers (Idaho Supreme Court 2023, 173 Idaho 100)“…y mortgage and reinitiated the statute of limitations under Idaho Code section 5-238. However, on summary judgment the distr…”
- Drakos v. Sandow (Idaho Supreme Court 2020)“…limitations through an acknowledgment outlined by Idaho Code section 5-238. After finding the statute of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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: Maine Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Michigan Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Alaska Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession
United States Code Title 15
§ 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, Alabama 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
- Idaho Code 11-207, Maximum amount subject to garnishment(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 11-605, Property exempt from execution (wages and wildcard)(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 5-238, Acknowledgment, new promise, and effect of payment(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 28-9-609, Secured party's right to take possession after default(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 28-46-507, Title loan default and notice to cure(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- 12 CFR 1006.26, Collection of time-barred debts (Regulation F)(ecfr.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 26-2223, License required to operate as a collection agency(legislature.idaho.gov)
- Idaho Code 26-2229A, Requirement of fair, open, and honest dealing and prohibited practices(legislature.idaho.gov)
- Idaho Code 11-712, Restriction on wage garnishment and maximum(legislature.idaho.gov)