Kansas Senate Bill SB323

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/15/26

Caption

Modifying the definition of earnings to include paid compensation for wage garnishment exemption purposes.

Summary

SB 323 amends Kansas wage garnishment law by revising the definition of “earnings” in K.S.A. 60-2310 to expressly include compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether paid as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise. The bill keeps the existing framework that limits garnishment to a portion of a worker’s disposable earnings and preserves the current cap formulas tied to 25% of disposable earnings, the federal minimum wage threshold, and the amount of the underlying claim. The bill also retains the existing exceptions and protections in the statute, including special rules for child support and alimony, bankruptcy orders, and state or federal tax debts. It continues to bar courts from issuing or enforcing garnishment orders that violate the statute, and it leaves in place the provisions addressing illness-related delays and restrictions on assignees of accounts from using wage garnishment, subject to the listed exceptions for support enforcement, certain state assignments, and restitution-related collections.

Impact

SB 323 would update and clarify Kansas civil procedure law governing wage garnishment by broadening the statutory definition of earnings used to determine what income is protected and what may be withheld. The practical effect is to ensure that paid compensation for personal services is clearly covered by the garnishment exemption rules, which may affect employers, judgment creditors, debt collectors, and workers whose income is subject to garnishment. The bill amends and then repeals the existing version of K.S.A. 60-2310, leaving the revised statute as the governing law upon publication.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a technical, noncontroversial update to existing garnishment law rather than a major policy shift. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from debate. The caption and drafting style suggest the bill is intended to clarify and modernize statutory language, which typically draws neutral or favorable treatment from legislators and stakeholders.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the scope of the definition of “earnings” and how broadly the garnishment exemption applies to different forms of compensation, especially commissions, bonuses, and other nontraditional pay. Creditors and collection interests may favor broader garnishment reach, while workers, consumer advocates, and debtor-protection interests may prefer a clearer or narrower exemption. Another possible issue is whether the clarification changes how employers must calculate withholding, though the bill does not alter the core percentage limits or the existing exceptions for support, bankruptcy, and taxes.