AN ACT Relating to raising the exemption from garnishment of earnings for judgments arising from medical debt;
Summary
SB 6105 would increase the amount of wages and other earnings that are protected from garnishment when a court judgment or order is based on medical debt. The bill amends Washington’s garnishment statutes to create a higher exemption for medical debt than for ordinary consumer debt, student loan debt, or other judgments. It also updates the required garnishment notices and claim forms so debtors are clearly informed of the different exemption rules that apply depending on the type of debt.
Under the bill, the exempt amount for medical-debt garnishments would be the greater of 60 times the state minimum hourly wage or 80 percent of the debtor’s disposable earnings. That is a higher protection than the bill’s separate rules for consumer debt and private student loan debt, which remain at lower exemption thresholds. The bill also revises the form language for writs of garnishment and exemption claims, including instructions for bank accounts and other property, to reflect the new medical-debt-specific protections and to make the notice language more explicit and standardized.
Impact
The bill would amend Washington’s garnishment and exemption statutes in Title 6 RCW, primarily changing the wage-exemption formula for medical-debt judgments and requiring corresponding updates to garnishment writs, notices, and exemption claim forms. It would affect creditors seeking to collect medical debt, employers served with wage garnishments, financial institutions holding debtor funds, and debtors asserting exemptions. The practical effect is to leave more of a debtor’s earnings protected from collection when the underlying judgment is for medical debt, while preserving the existing framework for other debt categories.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is generally favorable and consumer-protection oriented, with the policy goal of reducing the burden of medical debt collection on workers and families. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate in the materials supplied. The bill’s structure and caption indicate a targeted effort to expand protections rather than a broad overhaul of garnishment law.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the higher exemption level for medical debt compared with other debts, which may be viewed by creditors as limiting collection recovery while being supported by debtor advocates as necessary relief for people facing health-care-related financial hardship. Another likely issue is the administrative burden on employers, courts, and garnishees, since the bill requires revised notices and more detailed debt-specific forms and instructions. The distinction between medical debt and other consumer obligations is also notable, because it creates a separate legal treatment that may raise questions about line-drawing and consistency across debt types.