Mims v. Commercial Credit Corporation
307 N.E.2d 867, 1974 Ind. LEXIS 373, 261 Ind. 591 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two statutory wage garnishment exemptions exist, they are to be read as complementary, and the debtor is entitled to the more favorable one. If a debtor is not represented by counsel, the trial court has an affirmative duty to determine the debtor's eligibility for the exemptions and apply the one that is least burdensome.
Facts:
- A creditor obtained a money judgment against a debtor for her default on a retail installment sales contract.
- The debtor's net weekly income was approximately $57.00.
- This income was necessary to support the debtor, her unemployed husband, and their three minor children.
- The debtor's entire income was used to provide the family with the basic necessities of life.
Procedural Posture:
- A creditor obtained a money judgment against a debtor in an Indiana trial court.
- In proceedings supplemental to execution, the creditor obtained a garnishment order against the debtor's wages based on the UCCC exemption.
- The debtor's motion to correct errors was overruled by the trial court.
- The debtor, as appellant, appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, Second District.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the debtor had failed to affirmatively claim the resident-householder exemption.
- The Supreme Court of Indiana granted transfer to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a wage garnishment proceeding, does Indiana's Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) exemption impliedly repeal the older resident-householder exemption, and must an unrepresented debtor affirmatively claim the more favorable exemption to receive its protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunter, J.
No. The UCCC exemption does not repeal the resident-householder exemption, and a court must ensure an unrepresented debtor receives the benefit of the most favorable exemption. The court reasoned that the two exemption statutes are not in irreconcilable conflict; rather, they are complementary statutes (pari materia) that should be read together. The debtor is entitled to whichever exemption results in the least amount of garnished income. While the general rule requires a debtor to affirmatively claim an exemption, this rule is modified to protect the constitutional rights of unrepresented debtors. To preserve the constitutional right to enjoy the 'necessary comforts of life,' a trial court has a duty to determine if an unrepresented debtor qualifies as a resident-householder and then apply the exemption (either UCCC or resident-householder) that is most financially advantageous to that debtor.
Concurring in result - DeBruler, J.
Concurred in the judgment of the court without a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant procedural safeguard for unrepresented debtors in Indiana. It shifts the burden from the pro se litigant, who may be unaware of their rights, to the trial court to ensure that constitutional and statutory protections are applied. By creating an affirmative duty for judges, the ruling makes the right to a wage exemption more than a theoretical privilege, ensuring its practical application for the most vulnerable debtors. This precedent strengthens debtor protections and will likely influence how courts in similar jurisdictions handle garnishment proceedings involving unrepresented parties.
