02-19-2008, 04:27 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,141
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmba
It's not the changing of jobs that is relevant, it's the changing of residence. With some exceptions that don't seem to apply in this case, North Carolina does not allow creditors to enforce judgments by garnishing wages.
|
That was my point. The fact that he changed JOBS is irrelevant. If changing jobs avoids garnishment, people would do it all the time.
The original posters point was since he changed JOBS, and the previous job's headquarters was in yada yada yada---- he felt he would be excluded from garnishment. My point is I don't see the relevance or relationship between his job and garnishment.
And, as you point out, it isn't the changing of the jobs---there is no relevance there.
Exactly. |