United States of America v. Williams
Filing
10
ORDER Denying 5 Request for Hearing on Garnishment filed by Albert Lee Williams. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO: 16-50325
HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
v.
ALBERT LEE WILLIAMS,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR HEARING ABOUT THE
GARNISHMENT AND CLAIM FOR EXEMPTIONS (ECF NO. 5)
Before the Court is Defendant Albert Lee Williams’ Request for a Hearing about
the Garnishment and Claim for Exemptions. The request is DENIED.
On January 13, 2016, Williams entered into a plea agreement and was convicted
of Use of Counterfeit Access Devices, Aggravated Identify Theft and Bank Fraud. He
received a sentence of 64 months imprisonment and 24 months probation. Williams
was ordered to pay a total of $102,397.38. He still owes the full amount.
Williams requests a hearing because he says property has been sold to satisfy
the judgment and a financial payment has been agreed to. In an attached letter,
Williams references a property located at 265 Dellwood Ave in Pontiac, Michigan.
The Government says: (1) the current garnishment pertains only to future tax
refunds and does not affect Williams’ income stream; (2) by statute there are only three
issues that can be addressed at a garnishment hearing and Williams has not asserted a
1
valid basis to quash the garnishment.
The Court ordered the Government to submit supplemental briefing and address
what exactly the Government is attempting to garnish. If it is only future tax refunds, the
Court asked how Williams was notified. Secondly, the Court ordered the Government to
address whether future tax refunds are exempt from garnishment. Finally, the Court
ordered the Government to respond to Williams’ claimed exceptions for the properties
sold.
The Court is satisfied that the Government applied for and received a writ of
garnishment to attach to payments made to Williams from the State of Michigan,
Department of Treasury. Although the Government did not specifically provide a
separate notice to Williams that his income tax refund would be garnished, several
documents in the record, including the application for writ of garnishment, requests for
hearing, and certificates of service, all identify the State of Michigan, Department of
Treasury.
Assets that are exempt from garnishment are identified by statute. 18 U.S.C. §
3613(a). These exemptions are listed on the form Williams filled out for the purpose of
requesting a garnishment hearing. Williams said he believes that his property cannot
be garnished, and checked boxes for: (1) wearing apparel and school books; (2) fuel,
provisions, furniture and personal affects; (3) books and tools of a trade, business, or
profession; (4) judgments for support of minor children; and (5) minimum exemptions for
wages, salary and other income.
Tax refunds are not identified as an exemption from garnishment. 18 U.S.C. §
3613(a) and 26 U.S.C. §6334(a). The only section of exemptions that may cover tax
2
refunds is “minimum exemptions for wages, salary and other income.” 26 U.S.C.
§6334(a)(9). While some forms of income, such as some disability benefits, would be
except, a “...tax refund, based on taxes withheld as the result of employment, is not.”
United States v. Henderson, No. 13-15146, 2014 WL 4209936, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug.
26, 2014).
As the defendant contesting garnishment, Williams bears the burden to show he
is entitled to an exemption. Id. (Citing United States v. Sawaf, 74 F.3d 119, 121 (6th
Cir. 1996)). He has not done so. Additionally, Williams has not sufficiently stated his
financial circumstances to provide a basis for economic hardship. As noted by the
Government, if any properties have been sold to satisfy the judgment, Williams has not
provided documentation showing the outstanding balance due as restitution is incorrect.
Williams’ Request for a Hearing is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Date: June 8, 2016
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?