United States v. Joyce Ashcraft
2013 WL 5539599, 732 F.3d 860, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20524 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Disability payments received from an employer-provided insurance plan constitute 'earnings' under the Consumer Credit Protection Act because they are a form of deferred compensation for personal services, and are therefore subject to the Act's garnishment limitations.
Facts:
- Joyce Ashcraft was formerly employed by Amana Refrigeration.
- As a benefit of employment, Amana provided its employees with long-term disability insurance through Principal Life Insurance Company (PLIC).
- Ashcraft's employment with Amana aggravated a medical condition, which eventually rendered her unable to work.
- As a result of her inability to work, Ashcraft began receiving periodic disability payments from PLIC under the policy provided by her former employer.
- In 2004, Ashcraft was convicted of several criminal charges and sentenced to pay restitution.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government sought to garnish Joyce Ashcraft's disability payments in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa to satisfy a criminal restitution order.
- Ashcraft filed an objection to the garnishment, arguing the payments were 'earnings' and thus subject to the limitations of the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
- The district court overruled Ashcraft's objection, ruling that her disability payments were not 'earnings' within the meaning of the Act.
- Ashcraft (Appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with the United States as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do disability payments received from an employer-provided insurance plan constitute 'earnings' under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, thereby subjecting them to the Act's garnishment limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Melloy, J.
Yes, disability payments received from an employer-provided insurance plan constitute 'earnings' under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The Act broadly defines 'earnings' as 'compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise,' prioritizing the character of the payment over its label. The court reasoned that Ashcraft's disability benefits are a direct component of the compensation she received from Amana in exchange for her personal services, functioning as a wage substitute. The government's argument that the payments are not for 'personal services' because Ashcraft is no longer working incorrectly focuses on the timing of the payments. These benefits are a form of deferred compensation for past services, intended to provide the periodic support the Act was designed to protect, as noted in Kokoszka v. Belford.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent within the Eighth Circuit by broadening the interpretation of 'earnings' under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. As an issue of first impression, the court's holding classifies employer-provided disability benefits as a form of deferred compensation for past services, aligning them with pensions for garnishment protection. This decision strengthens protections for disabled individuals by ensuring their income-replacement benefits are not fully subject to seizure by creditors, thereby upholding the Act's policy of preserving funds necessary for basic support. This ruling is likely to influence other jurisdictions facing the same question, promoting a functional, rather than formalistic, approach to defining earnings.
