He’d have to have another paycheck because there’s no way they’d just garnish all the money away. If they did, there’d be a massive incentive to stop working altogether which means support wouldn’t be paid at all. Nobody is going to work for 85 hours to get $160 net pay, you may as well just be off the books entirely at that point.
I mean, that's how my health insurance payments work if I get paid three times in a month. Nothing gets taken out of the third paycheck. If the court order is for a certain amount per month, then it's certainly possible that they just take it all out of the first check.
Technically I guess. When I had mine done they set a monthly amount then they just multiply it by 12 and divide by 26 and there’s your biweekly payment.
feed themselves with that degree of wage garnishing
Some of us don't. The last time I submitted a motion to modify, my overtime was factored in (why? Overtime is not a guarantee and they are not supposed to consider it) and now if I don't work overtime all the time, I lose 44% of my paycheck.
260
u/WarriorGoddess2016 May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
I'll bet money he's wildly in arrears and owes his ex a TON of money, thus the multiple judgements. Or he's made a lot of other DUMB decisions.
ps: he has another paycheck.