United States v. Ashcraft

732 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 2004, D pleaded guilty to several criminal charges. She was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and restitution. She was released from custody in November 2012. Prior to her incarceration, she worked for Amana Refrigeration. D's employment with Amana aggravated a medical condition, rendering her unable to work. D receives disability payments from PLIC as an employee benefit for working with Amana. The disability payments will continue until she reaches the age of sixty-five in November 2016. In February 2012, P sought to garnish D's disability payments pursuant to her restitution sentence. D argued her disability payments are 'earnings' within the meaning of Consumer Credit Protection Act and are thus subject to the Act's limitations on garnishment. The district court ruled D's disability payments are not 'earnings' within the meaning of the Act and overruled her objection to garnishment. D appealed. D argues that the language of the Act is inclusive, allowing for non-enumerated 'periodic payments' to fall within the definition of 'earnings,' and that the disability payments are the kind of periodic payments intended to be protected by the Act. D argues that her disability insurance was part of her compensation from Amana and that her disability payments are considered wages by the IRS. P argues that D's disability payments are not 'compensation paid or payable for personal services' as the Act requires and that the Act does not expressly include disability payments within the definition of 'earnings.'