Legal Opinion

Bartel v. Zucktriegel

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 28, 2002No. 20442-1-IIIPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

Creditors in Washington can garnish a debtor’s future earnings to satisfy a judgment. RCW 6.27.330. The earnings subject to garnishment include “compensation paid or payable ... for personal services.” RCW 6.27.010(1). Here, the Café Mozart paid Richard Zucktriegel $1,600 per month. But the Café reduced his salary about the time his creditors tried to garnish his wages. The creditor challenged the reduction. And the trial court found that the Café still owed Mr. Zucktriegel $1,600 per month for his work. The court then entered judgment against the Café for the amount the Café should have…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Cockle v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  3. In Re Welfare of SegoWashington Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Davis v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Miller v. BadgleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bloor v. FritzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  2. Bloor v. FritzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  3. Bartel v. ZucktriegelCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  4. SCM Group USA, Inc. v. Protek Machinery Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  5. Alina Farooq v. Azeem KhanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API