Parker v. Baldwin County Eastern Shore Hospital Board, Inc.
Docket: Civ. 6896
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; May 31, 1989; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Judgment debtor appeals a trial court's ruling that her future wages are not exempt from garnishment, despite the debt being incurred before the enactment of Act 88-294. This Act amended section 6-10-6, Code 1975, specifically excluding wages, salaries, and other compensation from the $3,000 personal property exemption. The appellant contends that Act 88-294 should not affect her entitlement to exempt certain wages from garnishment, as the underlying debt was incurred before the Act took effect on April 12, 1988. A default judgment for $2,622.57 was issued against her on September 9, 1987, and following garnishment proceedings, she filed for a stay and claimed an exemption on February 25, 1988, which included all monthly wages exceeding federal and state exemptions. The district court allowed garnishment to continue pending a hearing and, after the Act's enactment, ruled on July 6, 1988, to deny the stay of garnishment, return amounts withheld prior to April 15, 1988, and permit garnishment of wages earned after that date. The circuit court later affirmed this judgment. Appellant argues that section 6-10-1, which governs exemptions based on the law at the time the debt was created, supports her claim. She cites Ex parte Avery, asserting that prior to Act 88-294, future wages could be claimed as exempt from garnishment. Additionally, she contends that the Act cannot be applied retroactively, referencing Holcomb v. Henderson National Bank regarding the retroactive application of laws on garnishment amounts.
Statutes generally are not construed to have retrospective effects unless explicitly stated by the legislature. Remedial statutes that do not create new rights or infringe on vested ones can operate retrospectively unless there is clear contrary intent. In the Holcomb case, the debtor sought to apply a specific law (section 5-19-15, Code 1975) retrospectively to exempt more income from garnishment, while the creditor contended that their rights were vested upon execution of the loan agreements, opposing any change due to a lack of legislative intent for retroactivity. The court agreed with the creditor, ruling that section 5-19-15 could not be applied retrospectively.
In the current case, the appellant contends that Act 88-294 should not apply retrospectively, citing section 6-10-1, which states exemption rights are governed by the time the debt was created. The appellee argues that Act 88-294 only modifies the method of determining exemptions without abolishing any existing rights. However, the court disagreed, asserting that the right to exempt wages from garnishment is a substantive legal right that cannot be affected by retrospective application unless clearly intended by the legislature, which was not the case with Act 88-294. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the hospital and its denial of the appellant's motion for stay of garnishment, remanding the case for further proceedings. The opinion was authored by Retired Circuit Judge J. ED TEASE and adopted by the court, with all judges concurring.
