An Act to repeal 812.40, 812.405 and 812.42 (2) (b); to renumber and amend 812.39 (2); to amend 812.33 (1), 812.35 (5), 812.35 (6), 812.38 (2), 812.39 (1), 812.44 (3) and 812.44 (4); to create 812.35 (7), 812.39 (2) (b), 812.39 (2m) and 812.395 of the statutes; Relating to: eliminating the 13-week limit on the garnishment of earnings of certain debtors.
SB300 would change Wisconsin’s earnings garnishment law by removing the current 13-week cap on how long a creditor may garnish a debtor’s wages in many cases. Under the bill, an earnings garnishment would remain in effect until the underlying judgment is satisfied or the court orders it terminated, rather than ending automatically after 13 weeks. The bill also updates the garnishment notice and procedure rules to reflect that longer duration, including requiring additional notices to the debtor every 13 weeks and periodic exemption paperwork every 180 days, up to five years or until the debt is paid.
The bill also revises priority rules when multiple wage claims exist. It gives court-ordered restitution garnishments priority over ordinary earnings garnishments, while preserving the existing priority of family-support assignments over both. The bill sets percentage limits so that combined withholding generally does not exceed 25% of disposable earnings when support assignments are involved, and 20% when restitution garnishments are involved, with notice requirements if those limits are reached. It also repeals several existing statutory provisions tied to the old 13-week framework and updates the standard garnishment and exemption forms used by courts and garnishees.
SB300 would substantially amend Wisconsin’s garnishment chapter by eliminating the automatic termination of most earnings garnishments after 13 weeks and replacing it with a continuing garnishment model. It would repeal ss. 812.40, 812.405, and 812.42 (2) (b), revise multiple related sections in ch. 812, and create new provisions governing continued garnishments, debtor address verification, priority among competing wage claims, and recurring debtor notices. The bill would affect creditors, employers and other garnishees, debtors, and courts by extending the collection period and adding ongoing administrative duties.
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded vote breakdown, so there is no detailed public debate record in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and its introduction by multiple legislators, the measure appears to have been advanced as a creditor-collection and restitution-enforcement proposal rather than a broadly contested policy package. Its final action indicates it ultimately failed to pass notwithstanding a gubernatorial objection, suggesting it was politically significant but not enacted.
The main point of contention is the bill’s removal of the 13-week limit on wage garnishments, which would make it easier for creditors to collect over a longer period but could also prolong wage withholding for debtors. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s treatment of competing claims on wages: it elevates criminal restitution garnishments above ordinary garnishments while preserving support obligations as the highest priority, which may be viewed as balancing victim compensation and family support against private debt collection. Debtors’ advocates may also object to the increased notice burden and the longer duration of garnishment exposure, while creditors and restitution proponents would likely support the expanded collection window and clearer priority rules.