Daisy Pruett v. Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/16/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120232 Daisy P r u e t t v. Worldwide A s s e t Purchasing, LLC Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t (CV-08-494) Court MOORE, J u d g e . Daisy Circuit Pruett appeals from a judgment o f t h e Morgan C o u r t r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w h e r t o c l a i m as exempt garnishment the t o t a l amount o f h e r wages. We r e v e r s e . from 2120232 On March 16, ("WAP"), f i l e d against 2012, Worldwide i n the c i r c u i t Pruett, seeking Asset Purchasing, court a process to recover of garnishment t h e amount o f $3,973.45 f r o m t h e wages P r u e t t e a r n e d i n h e r employment w i t h Stores, Inc. August 7, On A p r i l 10, 2012, W a l - M a r t 2012, Pruett f i l e d LLC Wal-Mart f i l e d an a n s w e r . h e r " D e c l a r a t i o n and Claim On of E x e m p t i o n , " c l a i m i n g as exempt h e r b i w e e k l y wages o f $ 6 0 0 ; she a l s o l i s t e d o t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y v a l u e d a t $2,080, b u t d i d not c l a i m t h a t p r o p e r t y as exempt. On A u g u s t 11, 2012, WAP f i l e d a contest of P r u e t t ' s c l a i m of exemption. On A u g u s t 27, 2012, Pruett f i l e d dismiss filed the w r i t a r e s p o n s e t o WAP's c o n t e s t and moved t o of garnishment. On August 29, 2012, WAP a response. On September judgment stating 18, 2012, the t h a t P r u e t t was circuit "entitled amount i n § 6 - 1 0 - 7 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] court to the entered a exemption w h i c h i s 75 p e r c e n t of h e r wages, s a l a r i e s o r o t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n due o r t o become due to her." 1 1 On October 12, 2012, Pruett filed a "Motion to S e c t i o n 6 - 1 0 - 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "The wages, s a l a r i e s , or other compensation of l a b o r e r s or employees, r e s i d e n t s of t h i s s t a t e , f o r 2 2120232 R e c o n s i d e r " ; t h a t m o t i o n was d e n i e d on November 2, 2012. On December 14, 2012, P r u e t t f i l e d h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l . On a p p e a l , P r u e t t argues t h a t , pursuant t o A l a . Const. 1901 ( O f f . Recomp.), A r t . X, § 204, she i s e n t i t l e d t o c l a i m the entirety garnishment. 204, of her biweekly Alabama Const. wages o f $600 as exempt from 1901 ( O f f . Recomp.), A r t . X, provides: "The p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y o f any r e s i d e n t o f t h i s s t a t e t o t h e v a l u e o f one t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s , t o be s e l e c t e d by s u c h r e s i d e n t , s h a l l be exempt f r o m s a l e o r e x e c u t i o n , o r o t h e r p r o c e s s o f any c o u r t , i s s u e d f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f any d e b t c o n t r a c t e d s i n c e t h e thirteenth day of J u l y , eighteen hundred and p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s , s h a l l be exempt f r o m l e v y u n d e r writs of garnishment or other process f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f debts c o n t r a c t e d or judgments e n t e r e d i n t o r t i n an amount e q u a l t o 75 p e r c e n t o f s u c h wages, s a l a r i e s , o r o t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n due o r t o become due t o s u c h l a b o r e r s o r e m p l o y e e s , a n d t h e l e v y as t o s u c h p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e i r wages, s a l a r i e s , o r o t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n s h a l l be v o i d . The c o u r t i s s u i n g t h e w r i t o r l e v y s h a l l show t h e r e o n t h e amount o f t h e c l a i m o f t h e p l a i n t i f f a n d t h e c o u r t c o s t s i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . I f a t any t i m e d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e c o u r t a judgment i s e n t e r e d f o r a d i f f e r e n t amount, t h e n t h e c o u r t s h a l l n o t i f y t h e g a r n i s h e e o f t h e c o r r e c t amount due by the defendant under the w r i t o r l e v y . The g a r n i s h e e s h a l l r e t a i n 25 p e r c e n t o f t h e wages, s a l a r i e s , or other compensation of the l a b o r e r or e m p l o y e e d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f t i m e as i s n e c e s s a r y t o a c c u m u l a t e a sum e q u a l t o t h e amount shown as due by t h e c o u r t on t h e w r i t o r l e v y . " 3 § 2120232 sixty-eight or Constitution." after the "[T]he $1,000 Roberts v. C a r r a w a y M e t h o d i s t (Ala. constitutional C i v . App. 1991) . judgment d e b t o r ratification exemption Med. this this includes C t r . , 591 In Roberts, of So. wages." 2d 870, 871 court held that c o u l d exempt wages i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a amount a l l o w e d u n d e r § 6-10-7 as l o n g as t h e amount o f t h e wages and o t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y b e i n g c l a i m e d as exempt d i d n o t e x c e e d t h e $1,000 e x e m p t i o n amount p r o v i d e d i n A l a . C o n s t . X, § 204. exceed B e c a u s e P r u e t t ' s t o t a l c l a i m e d e x e m p t i o n does the t h a t she $1,000 constitutional exemption, she not i s correct i s e n t i t l e d t o an e x e m p t i o n o f h e r t o t a l wages. WAP argues, property other however, t h a t because t h a n wages o f o v e r t h e e n t i r e t y o f h e r wages. Services, Inc., argues that exceed the a So. exemption exempt wages In a Sink, ($300 p l u s $900, w h i c h was of 607 judgment Constitution. $947.50 1901, A r t . P r u e t t has $1,000, she may personal not claim C i t i n g S i n k v. A d v a n c e d C o l l e c t i o n 2d 246 debtor ( A l a . C i v . App. may amount "Sink the exempt u n d e r not provided claimed other in 4 exemptions in WAP to Alabama's $1,200 of seventy-five percent, or federal p o s s i b l e $3,000 stack 1992), a t o t a l of law other and § personal 6-10-7) and property," 2120232 w h i c h was a t 248. exempt p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 6-10-6. T h i s c o u r t determined t h a t , because Sink's e x e m p t i o n s u n d e r §§ 6-10-6 and Id. 2 combined 6-10-7 e x c e e d e d $1,000, he n o t e n t i t l e d t o c l a i m t h e a d d i t i o n a l $300 i n wages. We was note, h o w e v e r , t h a t P r u e t t has n o t a t t e m p t e d t o s t a c k e x e m p t i o n s t o exceed the c l a i m any $1,000 constitutional exemption property than personal The p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 204 may other her -- she did wages as not exempt. i n d i c a t e s t h a t the judgment debtor s e l e c t t h e p r o p e r t y he o r she d e s i r e s t o be e x e m p t e d f r o m garnishment. claim her Thus, wages as i t i s Pruett's exempt and a d d i t i o n a l p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y as 2 Section to constitutional decline to right claim exempt. 6-10-6 p r o v i d e s : "The p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y o f s u c h r e s i d e n t , e x c e p t f o r wages, s a l a r i e s , o r o t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n , t o t h e e x t e n t of the r e s i d e n t ' s i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , t o the amount o f $3,000 i n v a l u e , t o be s e l e c t e d by him o r h e r , and, i n a d d i t i o n t h e r e t o , a l l n e c e s s a r y and p r o p e r w e a r i n g a p p a r e l f o r h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f and f a m i l y , a l l f a m i l y p o r t r a i t s o r p i c t u r e s and a l l b o o k s u s e d i n t h e f a m i l y s h a l l a l s o be exempt f r o m l e v y and s a l e u n d e r e x e c u t i o n o r o t h e r p r o c e s s f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f d e b t s . No wages, s a l a r i e s , or other compensation shall be exempt except as p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 5-19-15 o r S e c t i o n 6-10-7[, A l a . Code 1975] ." 5 to her 2120232 Because P r u e t t ' s c l a i m e d exemption o f t h e e n t i r e t y o f h e r wages does n o t e x c e e d t h e $1,000 e x e m p t i o n p r o v i d e d i n § 204, we r e v e r s e cause the c i r c u i t f o r the c i r c u i t Pruett's claimed court's court judgment, t o enter a n d we remand t h e a judgment allowing exemption. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.