Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One holds that Proposition 209 applies to garnishments prospectively.

In 2022, Arizona voters passed Proposition 209, which reduced the portion of wages for a pay period that may be subject to garnishment from 25% to 10%. Before Proposition 209, a creditor obtained a judgment against a debtor. Both before and after Proposition 209, the creditor garnished debtor’s wages. Following Proposition 209, debtor moved to amend the garnishment. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the judgment arose before Proposition 209. Debtor appealed.

Proposition 209 expressly provides that it does not affect the rights and duties that matured before the proposition’s effective date. Matured means that every necessary event has occurred. Proposition 209 therefore does not alter garnishments that occurred before its enactment. The garnishee, however, has an ongoing duty to complete a nonexempt earnings statement before each garnishment during a pay period is enforceable. Thus, the amounts subject to garnishment each pay period after Proposition 209 had not yet matured, and Proposition 209’s changes therefore affect the garnishment prospectively. 

Judge Foster delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Judge Furuya and Vice Chief Judge Howe joined.

Posted by: Brandon T. Delgado