Skip to content

Menu

Ballard Spahr L.L.P. logo
HomeKey TopicsSub-MenuRegulatory and EnforcementLitigation and Court Decisions

Consumer Finance Monitor

CFPB, Federal Agencies, State Agencies, and Attorneys General

Home » New COVID-19 Economic Relief Legislation Provides Exemption for Economic Impact Payments from Garnishment by Private Creditors and Debt Collectors

New COVID-19 Economic Relief Legislation Provides Exemption for Economic Impact Payments from Garnishment by Private Creditors and Debt Collectors

By Lori J. Sommerfield on December 28, 2020
Posted in COVID-19, Debt Collection, Regulatory and Enforcement

On December 21, Congress overwhelmingly passed a consolidated bill (H.R. 133) that contains $1.4 trillion in appropriations to keep the federal government funded until October 2021 and $900 billion in coronavirus economic relief. The latter is found in Division N of the lengthy bill (which runs over 5600 pages) entitled “Additional Coronavirus Response and Relief.” Division N of the bill contains much needed economic relief for struggling individuals and families, additional funding for businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program, and an extension of the troubled debt restructuring provisions from the CARES Act, among many other things.

Although President Trump was expected to sign the bill immediately, on December 22 he signaled that he might not sign the legislation. President Trump called the package “a disgrace” and advocated that Congress amend the bill to increase economic impact payments (“EIPs”) from $600 to $2,000 for individuals and from $2,400 to $4,000 for married couples. Nonetheless, President Trump finally signed the bill five days later on December 27 without any changes, thus narrowly averting a federal government shutdown and bringing much needed economic relief to needy individuals, families and businesses.

This blog post focuses on an exemption for EIPs from garnishment by private creditors and debt collectors that is contained in H.R. 133. The first round of EIPs provided under the CARES Act, which was enacted on March 25, 2020, did not exempt EIPs from garnishment by creditors and debt collectors. However, H.R. 133 makes EIPs completely exempt from garnishment by creditors. Banking trade groups successfully lobbied for this provision because banks were caught in the middle between their legal obligation to recognize state garnishment orders obtained by creditors and their desire to help protect EIPs for their financially-strapped customers.

Sections 272 and 273 of the bill authorize a second round of EIPs for individuals and families. The refundable tax credit is $600 per taxpayer (or $1,200 for married filing jointly), in addition to $600 per qualifying child. That means that a family of four could receive a payment of $2,400. The individual tax credit is half as much as the CARES Act provided last March ($1,200), but the tax credit per qualifying child is $100 more than the CARES Act allotted ($500). The tax credits are subject to phase-outs for incomes above $75,000, or $150,000 for joint filers, based on 2019 income tax returns.

Section 272 of the legislation provides an aggressive timeline for distribution of EIPs by instructing the Treasury Secretary to provide EIPs “as rapidly as possible” and setting a deadline of January 15, 2021 to issue such payments. Likely timing of Treasury action is discussed later in this blog post.

Like the CARES Act, EIPs are generally not subject to administrative reduction or offset for past due federal or state debts under H.R. 133. However, unlike the CARES Act, H.R. 133 makes EIPs completely exempt from bank garnishment or levy by private creditors or debt collectors. The term “garnishment” is defined broadly to include execution, levy, attachment, garnishment or other legal process. The bill would extend protection to EIPs by treating them similarly to other federally protected benefits. Specifically, direct deposit EIPs that are coded by the Treasury Department are exempt from garnishment orders under procedures currently applicable to garnishment exemption of other federal benefits like Social Security by requiring review of accounts during the “look-back period” required under 31 C.F.R. Part 212 of Treasury’s regulation. Other EIPs (e.g., checks, other electronic payments) may be exempt from garnishment upon request of the recipient.

Therefore, if a financial institution receives a garnishment order that applies to a deposit account that has received an encoded EIP payment, the financial institution must follow the account review “look-back” procedures in Treasury’s rules. As we understand the legislation, the EIP provisions of H.R. 133 would become effective immediately upon enactment and apply prospectively to garnishment orders from private creditor and debt collectors.

Although the exact timeline for the second round of EIPs is unclear, it is expected that the Treasury Department will quickly begin sending EIPs via ACH payment or check – likely within one week – because Treasury already has that infrastructure in place after implementing it following enactment of the CARES Act. As a result, it will be critical for banks to quickly ramp up planning at all levels of their organization to deal with the additional EIPs that will be received in individual bank accounts, as well as potential garnishment issues they may confront.

Tags: CARES Act, debt collector, deposit account, EIPs, H.R. 133
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
CFPB and DOJ send joint letters to landlords and mortgage servicers on CARES Act and SCRA protections
December 22, 2021
This week's podcast: Preparing for the end of COVID-19-related hardship assistance programs
October 7, 2021
D.C. emergency and temporary legislation limiting collection activities to take effect September 23, 2021
September 7, 2021
Regulatory & Enforcement
Litigation & Court Decisions


Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast

CA Consumer Financial Protection Law Resource Center

Stay Connected

RSS LinkedIn Twitter YouTube
Top Ranked Chambers USA 2022

Topics

Archives

Resources

  • American Bankers Association (ABA)
  • American Financial Services Association
  • CA AG
  • CA Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
  • CBA
  • CFPB
  • Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS)
  • Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA)
  • Dodd-Frank Act Title X
  • Dodd-Frank Act Title XIV
  • DOJ
  • FCC
  • FDIC
  • Federal Reserve Bank
  • Financial Services Roundtable (FSR)
  • FTC
  • HUD
  • IL AG
  • MA AG
  • MBA
  • National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG)
  • Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS)
  • NCUA
  • NY AG
  • NY DFS
  • OCC
  • U.S. Department of the Treasury

Related Blogs

  • American Banker BankThink
  • American Bankers Association Dodd-Frank Tracker for CFPB
  • Bankwatch
  • Consumer Law & Policy
  • Credit Slips
CFS Alerts
CFS Events

Recent Posts

  • New York Governor’s 2024 fiscal budget proposal targets overdraft and NSF fees
  • Ninth Circuit Vacates and Remands $8 Million CFPB Judgment in Lawsuit Against Mortgage Services Company
  • DFPI asks Court to Enjoin OppFi From Facilitating High Rate Consumer Loans in California
  • CFPB Suffers Significant Defeat In ECOA Lawsuit Against Townstone Mortgage
  • Briefing on CFPB certiorari petition seeking review of Fifth Circuit ruling that CFPB’s funding is unconstitutional and CFSA cross-petition for certiorari distributed to Supreme Court for consideration at February 17 conference

Consumer Finance Monitor

by the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr LLP

RSS LinkedIn Twitter YouTube

Practice Leaders

Daniel JT McKenna
mckennad@ballardspahr.com
215.864.8321
John D. Socknat
socknatj@ballardspahr.com
202.661.2253
DisclaimerPrivacy Policy

ABOUT THE CFS GROUP

The Consumer Financial Services Group is nationally recognized for its guidance in structuring and documenting new consumer financial services products, its experience with the full range of federal and state consumer credit laws throughout the country, and its skill in litigation defense and avoidance, including pioneering work in pre-dispute arbitration programs. Read More
Copyright © 2023, Ballard Spahr L.L.P. All Rights Reserved.
www.ballardspahr.com
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo