## Facts

- Commonwealth Edison (Edison) obtained a circuit-court money judgment against Willie Denson for $629.54 plus costs.
- Denson worked for Caterpillar Tractor Company (Caterpillar), which became the garnishee-employer when Edison served wage-deduction interrogatories seeking collection from Denson’s paycheck.
- Caterpillar did not withhold the full percentage Edison sought because Caterpillar was already withholding $60 per week from Denson’s wages pursuant to a support order.
- In a separate case, Newsome Physical Therapy Clinic (Newsome) obtained a judgment against Dwight Morgan for $748.19 plus costs.
- Morgan also worked for Caterpillar.
- Newsome served Caterpillar with wage-deduction interrogatories (and supporting paperwork) seeking withholding from Morgan’s wages.
- Caterpillar declined to withhold for Newsome because Morgan’s wages were already subject to withholding under a support order.
- The trial court ruled for Edison and Newsome, reasoning that support-order withholdings should not be counted as reducing the wages available for wage-deduction orders held by ordinary judgment creditors.
- Caterpillar appealed, and the appellate court considered the wage-deduction disputes together.

## Issues

1. Whether amounts withheld from an employee’s wages under a support order must be treated as reducing the employee’s “disposable earnings” when applying statutory limits on wage-deduction orders sought by non-support judgment creditors.
2. Whether an employer-garnishee may be held liable for failing to withhold the full amount sought by a judgment creditor when the employee’s wages are already being withheld under a support order.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgments entered against Caterpillar.
- The court held that support-order withholdings must be considered when determining what portion of wages remains available for additional wage deductions on ordinary judgments.
- The court ruled that Caterpillar could not be required to take additional amounts that would exceed the governing statutory limits once existing support withholdings were taken into account.
- The cases were remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- “Disposable earnings” for wage-deduction purposes are the earnings remaining after deductions required by law; amounts withheld pursuant to court-ordered support are treated as such deductions when calculating what is available for other creditors.
- Statutory garnishment limits apply to the employee’s pay as affected by existing, legally compelled withholdings; later wage-deduction orders reach only what remains within those limits.
- Federal law (the Consumer Credit Protection Act) restricts the aggregate portion of disposable earnings that may be subjected to garnishment; state procedures for wage deduction cannot be applied in a way that results in withholding above the federal ceiling.
- Support obligations are enforced through mandatory wage withholding and are not ignored when courts measure what wages are available to satisfy consumer-debt judgments.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Appellate Court held that Caterpillar properly accounted for existing support-order withholdings when responding to wage-deduction efforts by Commonwealth Edison and Newsome, and that the trial court erred by treating support withholdings as irrelevant to the calculation of wages available for ordinary judgment-creditor garnishment; accordingly, the judgments against the employer-garnishee were reversed and the matters remanded.


Commonwealth Edison v. Denson, 494 N.E.2d 293 (1986)