Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

S_AZ PASS-03 — Ordinary civil money-judgment earnings garnishment

This pass establishes the ordinary earnings-garnishment formula and the statutory objection, hardship, continuing-lien, accounting, and release process. It does not establish the result for a particular debtor, employer, judgment, contract, or court calendar.

The principal findings are:

• For the post-Proposition 209 branch, Arizona ordinarily protects the greater amount produced by its two statutory limits: withholding cannot exceed the lesser of 10% of disposable earnings or the amount exceeding 60 times the highest applicable federal, state, or local minimum hourly wage for a weekly pay period. The independently applicable federal limit must also be respected. C005–C014.
• With Arizona’s verified 2026 minimum wage of $15.15, the weekly Arizona threshold is $909, assuming that wage applies to the worker and no higher local wage applies. This is an earnings calculation, not a protected-bank-balance calculation. C002, C007, C012.
• Hardship relief requires a court determination supported by clear and convincing evidence of extreme economic hardship. The court may reduce the applicable 10% maximum to no lower than 5%. Neither filing a request nor showing ordinary financial difficulty automatically produces a 5% order. C045–C046.
• A debtor’s objection generally must be requested within 10 days after receipt of the answer or earnings statement being challenged, with a statutory good-cause route for lateness. Copies must be delivered to all parties. Filing an objection does not itself stop withholding. C036–C041.
• The transition cannot be reduced to “old debt means old percentage” or “all current withholding automatically uses new law.” Proposition 209’s saving clause remains material; the published facial-challenge opinion and the narrower, nonprecedential old-judgment/new-writ decision have different holdings. C017–C022, C075, C078.

These conclusions rest on the sources and qualifications below. Definition; wages; salary; compensation+5

1. Scope, dates, provenance, and counts

Research baseline: October 22, 2026, Pacific. Actual access date for this pass: October 27, 2026, Pacific, later than the baseline.

Exact opening timestamps were not logged for individual sources and are therefore UNKNOWN. A session clock was read, but it is not substituted for a source-opening time. Publication dates, rule-adoption dates, effective dates, and the supplied coordinator-review timestamps are separately identified.

This research continued in the visible conversation. No separate Chat conversation, subagent, Deep Research run, private-case lookup, account interaction, filing, contact, purchase, website change, or local deliverable write was used. A particular ChatGPT picker setting or power level was not independently observable here; routing/power verification remains UNMEASURED, without a capability ranking or a claim of actual GPT6Pro execution.

Register and coverage counts

In the tables below, S001 and C001 are shorthand for S_AZ-P03-S001 and S_AZ-P03-C001, respectively. Full identifiers appear in the source and claim registers.

2. Substantive findings

2.1 What is being garnished, and whose duties are involved?

Arizona’s earnings article reaches compensation for personal services, including wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, and specified periodic retirement payments. “Disposable” does not mean whatever remains after household expenses. It means earnings after deductions required by law. Rent, voluntary insurance deductions, voluntary retirement contributions, and other elective spending cannot simply be subtracted without a legal predicate. C001, C003.

The ordinary actors are the judgment creditor, judgment debtor, garnishee owing earnings, issuing clerk or justice of the peace, and judge deciding objections. The statute also recognizes a qualified debt-counseling organization for the narrow debt-scheduling predicate. That reference does not resolve any provider’s licensing status. C004, C025.

A decisive boundary appears in §12-1598.01: after an employer disburses earnings to or for the employee, they generally become “monies” for the separate non-earnings article, subject to the stated pension/retirement-contribution exception. A bank account containing wages and benefits therefore requires a different legal analysis. C002, C069–C070. Definitions+4

2.2 The ordinary formulas and 2026 wage inputs

For a weekly pay period, define:

• D: disposable earnings, after legally required deductions.
• H: the highest legally applicable federal, state, or local minimum hourly wage when the earnings are payable.
• p: 10% under the post-initiative ordinary branch, or the lower percentage actually ordered through the hardship process.

The Arizona calculation is:

Arizona maximum = the lesser of p × D and D − 60 × H, with zero withholding when the protected threshold consumes all disposable earnings.

The federal CCPA calculation is separately:

Federal maximum = the lesser of 25% × D and D − 30 × the federal minimum hourly wage.

An ordinary garnishment must fit both applicable limits, as well as the actual order and remaining collectible balance. These are aggregate protections, not a separate percentage allowance for each creditor. C005–C010, C049, C052.

The actual official inputs read were:

The updated official earnings form uses Arizona multipliers of 60 weekly, 120 biweekly, 130 semimonthly, and 260 monthly. The federal equivalents are 30, 60, 65, and 130, respectively. Biweekly and semimonthly are not interchangeable. C008–C016. uscode.house.gov+6

2.3 Which date controls the Proposition 209 branch?

The initiative became effective December 5, 2022, as recognized in the judicial materials read. Its saving clause says it applies prospectively and preserves specified pre-effective-date matured rights and duties, contracts, and judgment-interest arrangements. The date on which earnings are payable separately controls the minimum-wage benchmark in §33-1131(B). These are different inquiries. C007, C017–C018.

The actual decisions read establish the following bounded propositions:

The published April 2024 opinion discusses the February memorandum decision in paragraph 32. That later treatment was read. No comprehensive citator or later appellate-docket certification was performed. An old contract, an old judgment, a renewed judgment, an existing continuing lien, and a newly served writ are not treated as interchangeable events. C022, C078. azcourts.gov+5

2.4 The objection and hardship gateway

The ordinary process requires an existing money judgment, a qualifying application, issuance and service of the writ, the garnishee’s answer, and the required notices. Service creates an initial lien, but the employer may not transfer the withheld amount to the creditor before the required court order. C023–C035.

A party may object to the writ, answer, or nonexempt-earnings statement. The statutory trigger is receipt of the answer or statement being challenged, not a guessed date on which the creditor prepared it. The request must state grounds, reach the court within the applicable period, and be copied to all parties. The court has specified hearing and notice obligations; late filing requires good cause. C036–C040, C083.

Hardship is an evidentiary, discretionary determination. The statute requires extreme economic hardship to the debtor or family, proved clearly and convincingly. Necessary expenses can be evidence of hardship; they do not automatically become deductions in the disposable-earnings calculation. The updated form permits a creditor to consent to a proposed 5% reduction, but still calls for a revised proposed order and judicial action. C045–C046. azleg.gov+3

2.5 Stays, court differences, continuing withholding, and release

A material rule-history distinction emerged:

• The 2019-effective amendment to Superior Court Civil Rule 62(a) generally stays execution and enforcement for 15 days after judgment entry, unless the court orders otherwise and subject to the rule’s exceptions.
• An earnings objection is not itself an automatic stay.
• A Rule 60 or Justice Court Rule 141 judgment-relief motion does not by itself suspend the judgment.
• A qualifying Superior Court supersedeas-bond motion or approved security can produce a stay under ARCAP 7. A notice of appeal alone should not be treated as equivalent to that process.
• The Justice Court rule set is separate. The official reproduction read does not justify importing every later Superior Court rule amendment into Justice Court practice.

Current consolidated rule pages were inaccessible. The final adoption orders and the official 2025 Justice Court reproduction support these distinctions, with the consolidation limits preserved. C027, C041, C060–C063, C074, C080. azcourts.gov+5

After a continuing-lien order, earnings statements, remittance, balance reporting, prevention of excess withholding, and prompt release remain affirmative duties. Failure to answer does not instantly make the employer liable for the entire judgment: the statute requires the further order-to-appear/answer process before discretionary default relief. C047–C057.

3. Complete source register

Access convention: Every row below was checked on October 27, 2026, Pacific. Exact source-opening time: UNKNOWN.

Status terms: Fresh body = material text actually retrieved and read. Official reproduction = government-hosted reproduction, with the stated edition limit. Guidance/index = operational or discovery support, not a substitute for controlling law. Failed body = target substantive body not retrieved.

3.1 Arizona law, initiative, opinions, and forms

3.2 Federal law and wage sources

3.3 Rules, currentness checks, local guidance, and inaccessible documents

S001: direct section URL and pinpoint map

These are different sections of the same Title 12 source record, not newly invented source IDs.

The posted ordinal labels for the two §12-1598.10 versions are inconsistent between navigation and body. The controlling selection here is identified by “2022 Prop. 209”, not by an assumed “Version 1/2” label. Continuing lien on earnings; order+2

Material failed routes and the actual alternatives

4. Atomic claim and evidence table

Confidence convention: “High text” means the cited material was actually read and supports the stated legal proposition. It does not certify private predicates, all later treatment, or local implementation. “Bounded” identifies reproduction, guidance, currentness, or construction limits. “Held” means no conclusion on the missing point.

4.1 Definitions, formulas, wage inputs, and transition

4.2 Judgment, writ, answer, objection, and hearing

4.3 Hardship, accounting, priority, default, and employment protection

4.4 Courts, forms, boundaries, and currentness

5. Nineteen fictional postures and conditional computations

These are fictional. Unless a posture says otherwise, assume a valid ordinary consumer money judgment, the post-initiative branch, a legally effective writ/order after any applicable stay, a covered private-sector worker, earnings payable in 2026, no higher applicable local wage, no support/tax withholding, and enough unpaid judgment balance. Those assumptions are not findings about anyone.

All dollar results below are exact to cents. No early rounding or invented CPI adjustment is used.

Posture 1 — At or below the weekly threshold

Inputs: disposable earnings D = $909/week; applicable wage H = $15.15/hour.

Arizona protected threshold: 60 hours × $15.15/hour = $909/week. Percentage branch: 10% × $909 = $90.90/week. Excess branch: $909 − $909 = $0/week. Arizona result: lesser of $90.90 and $0 = $0/week.

Federal threshold: 30 × $7.25 = $217.50/week. Federal branches: $227.25 and $691.50; federal maximum = $227.25. Both laws together: $0/week.

Adverse branch: if D were $900, the Arizona excess would be −$9; that means zero reachable earnings, not a negative payment or a $90 deduction. C005–C012, C077.

Posture 2 — Above the threshold, but the excess branch controls

Inputs: gross earnings $1,300/week; legally required deductions $300/week; D = $1,000/week.

A voluntary $100 deduction and $400 rent expense are not subtracted merely because they exist.

Arizona threshold: 60 × $15.15 = $909. Percentage branch: 0.10 × $1,000 = $100. Excess branch: $1,000 − $909 = $91. Arizona maximum: $91/week.

Federal branches: 0.25 × $1,000 = $250; $1,000 − $217.50 = $782.50. Federal maximum: $250. Combined ordinary maximum: $91/week.

If the continuing-lien employer lawfully takes the optional $5 statement fee from that nonexempt amount, the illustration produces $86 to the creditor plus $5 to the employer, not $96 withheld from the worker. C003, C005–C012, C053.

Posture 3 — Percentage branch controls

Inputs: D = $1,200/week; H = $15.15/hour.

Arizona percentage: 10% × $1,200 = $120. Arizona excess: $1,200 − $909 = $291. Arizona maximum: $120/week.

Federal percentage: $300. Federal excess: $982.50. Federal maximum: $300.

The combined ordinary maximum is $120/week, not the federal $300. C005–C012.

Posture 4 — Semimonthly is not biweekly

Inputs: D = $2,000 per semimonthly period; H = $15.15/hour.

Arizona threshold: 130 × $15.15 = $1,969.50. Percentage branch: 10% × $2,000 = $200. Excess branch: $2,000 − $1,969.50 = $30.50. Arizona maximum: $30.50 per semimonthly period.

Federal threshold: 65 × $7.25 = $471.25. Federal branches: $500 and $1,528.75. Federal maximum: $500. Combined maximum: $30.50.

Adverse branch: for a genuinely biweekly $2,000 period, Arizona’s threshold would instead be 120 × $15.15 = $1,818; the excess is $182, producing a $182 maximum. Misclassifying the period materially changes the result. C008–C009.

Posture 5 — Higher-local-wage applicability is unproved

A fictional worker performs some work inside a city and some outside it. The payroll department has only an office mailing address.

Result: hold H and the final withholding amount until the applicable local ordinance, covered work location/time, and pay date are established. Flagstaff’s posted 2026 rate is verified, but its entire current ordinance was not retrieved; Tucson’s current rate body was not retrieved. A statewide $909 threshold is not automatically selected for this worker. C007, C014–C016, C087.

Posture 6 — Historical withholding versus a new post-initiative writ

Assume a genuinely applicable November 2022 historical ordinary branch, D = $1,000/week and federal wage $7.25/hour.

Old percentage branch: 25% × $1,000 = $250. Old threshold: 30 × $7.25 = $217.50. Old excess: $1,000 − $217.50 = $782.50. Historical maximum: $250/week.

Now change the facts: the judgment is old, but the garnishment proceeding begins after December 5, 2022. The historical calculation is not automatically carried forward. The actual saving clause, writ/service events, relevant contract terms and the limited decisions must be considered. C018–C020, C075.

Posture 7 — Renewal does not answer the transition question by itself

A fictional contract predates the initiative and the creditor later renews its judgment.

Result: no percentage selected from the renewal date alone. This pass did not establish that renewal creates a new contract, extinguishes matured rights, or resets the initiative’s temporal analysis. C078.

Posture 8 — Hardship is granted

Inputs: D = $2,000/week; H = $15.15/hour. Assume the court actually finds the statutory predicate and clear-and-convincing extreme hardship and enters a 5% order.

Ordinary percentage: 10% × $2,000 = $200. Ordered percentage: 5% × $2,000 = $100. Threshold excess: $2,000 − $909 = $1,091. Reduced Arizona maximum: lesser of $100 and $1,091 = $100/week.

Federal maximum is $500, so the lower state/order result remains $100. The result depends on the entered order, not the request alone. C045–C046.

Posture 9 — Hardship is denied

Use the same earnings as Posture 8, but assume the court does not find the required proof.

Result: the ordinary Arizona maximum remains $200/week, subject to the actual order and remaining balance. Household expenses may be relevant evidence, but they do not automatically become legally required payroll deductions. C003, C045.

Posture 10 — Late objection

A fictional debtor receives the garnishee’s answer, then submits an objection after the applicable ten-day period.

Result: the debtor needs the statutory good-cause basis for the late request. Neither automatic acceptance nor automatic permanent loss of all future statement objections is assumed. Actual receipt, filing and calendar facts remain held. C036, C038.

Posture 11 — Filed with court, but not delivered to other parties

A fictional debtor timely files the hearing request but sends no copy to creditor or garnishee.

Result: the separate delivery requirement is unsatisfied. The court’s treatment of the defect, any cure and resulting hearing consequences are held. The filing is not treated as an automatic withholding stay. C037, C041.

Posture 12 — Employer misses the answer deadline

A fictional employer fails to answer within the applicable ten-day period.

Result: no immediate automatic judgment for the creditor’s full debt is assumed. The creditor must pursue the statutory order-to-appear/answer process; service, the opportunity to answer at least five days before appearance, and later noncompliance matter before discretionary default relief. C054.

Posture 13 — Two ordinary writs

Two ordinary creditors serve writs at different times. Assume no superior support claim and the earlier writ consumes the available ordinary nonexempt amount.

Result: the limits are not doubled. If the later creditor receives no nonexempt earnings for two consecutive paydays because of priority, its lien becomes invalid under the stated provision and the garnishee must notify it. C052, C084.

Posture 14 — Commission or business receivable?

A fictional person receives commissions under a service contract, but the payor cannot tell whether the amount represents that individual’s personal services or a business entity’s receivable.

Result: classification held. Neither a “1099” label nor a commission label alone establishes the correct earnings route. C001, C069, C081.

Posture 15 — Exempt-benefit funds mixed with deposited pay

A fictional bank account contains deposited wages and a payment described as a protected benefit.

Result: no 10%-of-bank-balance calculation. The employer-disbursement boundary sends the account inquiry to non-earnings garnishment, benefit protection and tracing rules, which remain open. C002, C070.

Posture 16 — Claimed bankruptcy stay or discharge, status unknown

A fictional debtor tells payroll that a bankruptcy filing or discharge occurred, but no legally sufficient status information is supplied in this research.

Result: the relevant bankruptcy predicate, scope and effect are held. This is neither an instruction to disregard a valid stay nor a finding that any asserted filing automatically establishes release of every amount. C051, C071.

Posture 17 — Money withheld, but no continuing order

Assume no objection to the answer, and no continuing-lien order is entered within forty-five days after the answer was filed.

Result: the specified statutory consequence is release of the held earnings to the debtor and discharge of the garnishee. The employer cannot treat the initial writ alone as indefinite authority to retain and later remit the money. C030, C044.

Posture 18 — Prior payments leave only $40

Assume the normal period maximum would be $120, but the verified total collectible balance, after all credits and allowed amounts, is only $40. Assume no additional employer fee in this illustration.

Operator: lesser of legal period maximum $120 and remaining collectible amount $40. Result: $40, followed by the appropriate stopping and release/satisfaction duties.

Adverse branch: an uncredited prior payment or a wrong interest balance prevents reliable calculation; hold the amount rather than collect another full $120. C048–C050.

Posture 19 — Employment interruption

A fictional ordinary employee leaves the garnishee’s employment for more than sixty days. The statutory continuing-lien termination condition applies.

Change the facts to a specified school employee with a contract restricting paydays to the school year: the statute uses the corresponding ninety-day rule. The distinct “no nonexempt earnings” condition uses at least sixty/ninety days, while the leaving-employment condition uses more than sixty/ninety days. Actual dates and contract status remain held. C051.

6. Granular coverage and exact remaining investigations

6.1 Core substantive coverage — 22 rows

6.2 Workflow coverage — 16 rows

6.3 Actor and court coverage — 9 rows

6.4 Currentness and provenance coverage — 10 rows

6.5 Deferred categories — 16 rows

6.6 Fifteen individual county/local holds

The inventory is supported by the Judicial Branch’s “Arizona Superior Courts by County” listing. It does not establish fifteen completed local investigations. azcourts.gov

No county row determines jurisdiction over tribal territory or an interstate employer. No local holiday calendar or actual service deadline was calculated.

6.7 Exact P01 deferred-subcomponent crosswalk — 1 row

7. Researcher self-check

Actually read: the material Arizona earnings definitions and process provisions; the initiative-version continuing-lien and hardship provision; §33-1131 and relevant general article boundaries; Proposition 209’s reproduced enacted amendments and saving clause; the material facts, posture, reasoning and disposition of the three identified judicial decisions; the 2025 administrative directive and appended revised forms; CCPA §§1671–1677 in the official reproduction, with fresher OLRC bodies for §§1673–1675; material Part 870 provisions; official federal and Arizona wage material; the identified rule-adoption texts and Justice Court reproduction; relevant legislative currentness tables; and the official fifteen-county inventory.

Not represented as fully read or fully current: inaccessible consolidated rules, inaccessible standalone forms, Tucson’s substantive official sources, Flagstaff’s complete current ordinance, the chapter 194 enactment body, all incorporated special-regime law, every page of the large compilations, or a comprehensive later-treatment citator. Official guidance and old forms were not promoted into controlling statutes.

Errors avoided through reconciliation: the earlier Rule 62 no-automatic-stay wording was not used after reading the 2019-effective amendment; the old numerical template in §12-1598.16 was not substituted for amended §33-1131; the court guidance’s abbreviated threshold wording was not copied into the formula; future 2027 local wages were not used as 2026 inputs; and a bank balance was not treated as employer-held earnings.

Remaining evidence holds are substantive: particularly current rule consolidation, standalone form revisions, local wage coverage, particular transition facts, actual court orders and service/pay dates, broader benefit/bankruptcy protections, and county/tribal implementation. None is resolved by a snippet, an inaccessible document’s title, or the existence of a public index.

The arithmetic was checked using the verified inputs stated in the fictional examples. No actual paystub, eligibility determination, court selection, calendar computation, filing, contact, private record lookup, local coordinator-file write, or publication-readiness claim was made.

END S_AZ PASS-03.