Page 2 - John Hundley 2007

“wages” under the Wage Deduction Statute (735 ILCS 5/12-801 et seq.), “the court shall proceed as if a wage
deduction proceeding had been filed” and the terms of that Statute shall apply. This is intended to apply to citations
issued to employers, and confirms the better reading of existing law. When first faced with the new statute, financial
institutions may wonder whether it applies to wages which have been deposited into an employee’s account. Because
“wages” under § 12-801 are “compensation owed by an employer” (emphasis added), the answer should be “no.”

7. Wage Deduction Statute is amended to confirm that the formula for determining maximum wages subject
to collection does not give a court discretion to order withholding of less than the amount determined by that
formula. Some courts have interpreted the “maximum wages subject to collection” language to give them such
discretion; that interpretation is reversed. By virtue of the amendment referenced in the previous paragraph, the same
clarification will apply when wages are reached under a citation to discover assets. (Some courts had held that the
permissive language prevalent in the citation statute gave them power to order withholding of less than the statutory
formula required.) The changes thus confirm the age-old general principle that all the assets of a judgment debtor are
subject to application toward the judgment except to the extent they have been declared exempt by statute.

8. Wage Deduction Statute will provide that when a judgment creditor fails to serve the required quarterly
certification of the balance due, the employer is to continue the withholding, but may suspend turning over
funds. The better view of prior law was that the creditor’s failure to certify that a balance remained negated the authority
to invade the employee’s wages.

9. Wage Deduction Statute will provide that when an employer wrongfully ceases to remit funds in response
to a continuing wage deduction order, the judgment creditor may seek proceedings on a conditional judgment,
as if the employer had not appeared in response to the wage deduction summons. Prior law appeared to require
the creditor to proceed by way of a rule to show cause why the employer should not be held in contempt.

10. Wage Deduction Statute will provide that the employer’s fee is 2% of the amount withheld, rather than
the greater of $12 or 2% of the amount withheld. The $12 clause – a carry-over from days when wage deduction
judgments covered only 84 or fewer days of employment – became moot under the “continuing garnishment” scheme
adopted in 1999 whenever a judgment of more than $600 was collected through a wage garnishment. Thus, the practical
effect of this change is merely to simplify calculation of employer fees before the $600 in withholding is reached.

11. Replevin Statute (735 ILCS 5/19-101 et seq.) will provide that when defendant is served with order of
replevin and fails to deliver the property to the sheriff, if plaintiff has “reasonable belief as to where the chattel
is” the court may authorize the sheriff to use reasonable force to enter into realty and recover the chattel.

12. Replevin Statute is amended to limit the circumstances in which costs and damages may be assessed
against the plaintiff. Prior law seemed to allow such recovery merely because the plaintiff failed to prosecute the action
or allowed a voluntary or involuntary dismissal to be entered. The amended version will require that the action have
resulted in an order of replevin and that the right of property be adjudged against the plaintiff.

13. Replevin Statute is amended regarding mobile homes. When replevin of a mobile home is sought, if there
has been advance notice to the occupants, the court will be able to award possession to plaintiff as in an action under the
Forcible Entry Statute (735 ILCS 5/9-101 et seq.) and order the sheriff to remove personal property from the mobile home.
Execution must be stayed for a “reasonable time” to allow occupants to remove the personal property first.

14. Judgments of federal courts located in Illinois may be enforced in state courts by the filing in the state
court of a certified copy of the federal judgment. The interplay between the new provision and the applicable Federal
Rules of Civil procedure is unclear. However, the amendment is likely to be greeted warmly in the federal courts, which
often do not like their resources and those of the U.S. Marshal being tied up on wage deductions, citations to discover
assets, and seizure and sale of personal property in aid of judgments.
John\Sharp Thinking\#1.doc
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
THE SHARP LAW FIRM, P.C.

1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170

Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’ Rights •
Arbitration & Mediation • Adoption & Guardianship • Estate Planning • Probate

Terry Sharp: law@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com; Stephen M. Osborne: Sosborne@lotsharp.com;
Meleah Walton: Mwalton@lotsharp.com; Mandy Combs: Mcombs@lotsharp.com; Real Estate Closing and Title Services, see
www.sharptitleservices.com

Advertising Material