Direct Deposit Requirement May Create Problems for Debt Laden Social Security Beneficiaries

By Jonathan Ginsberg, Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Social Security’s new rules requiring all beneficiaries to set up direct deposit could create significant problems for beneficiaries who owe money to creditors. Protected Social Security funds that are co-mingled with other monies will likely lose their protected status and could be seized by creditors.

Federal law provides that Social Security payments are exempt from garnishment from civil creditors. If, for example, a credit card lender sues you and obtains a judgment, that creditor cannot ask Social Security to withhold funds from your government check. The only exceptions to this rules involve:

  • tax debts owed to the IRS
  • child support debt
  • all claims (including tax and child support) against SSI money. SSI is considered a welfare payment and not subject to seizure by anyone.

Social Security money that is co-mingled with non-Social Security money, however, may lose this special protection.

Social Security recipients can protect themselves by asking their bank to create a sub-account that holds only SSA issued funds. No money other than SSA funds should ever be deposited into this account. This is especially necessary if the recipient has civil judgment creditors looking for a source of funds to levy against.

In my practice, I have represented a number of senior citizen clients who are living with tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, have no assets or equity in property, and who survive on Social Security only. In these cases I often discourage bankruptcy and instead write each creditor advising the creditor that my client is judgment proof with no source of funds that can be garnished.

At the same time I write the credit card company, I also draft a letter to my client’s bank, putting the bank on notice that it should not honor any garnishment because the sole source of funds is Social Security money.

Often, however, I find that my clients are using their “Social Security” account as a regular bank account and they deposit other money, such as funds generated from a garage sale or a gift from a relative. I spend a lot of time explaining to my client that even a few dollars of co-mingled money may jeopardize the protected status of their Social Security bank account.

Now that many more Social Security recipients are entering the electronic banking world, I expect that more than a few will find themselves trying to get money back from a judgment creditor who found a co-mingled account.

Sometimes, senior citizens choose to file bankruptcy for the peace of mind benefit, but often a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filing is not necessary – instead many creditors and collection agencies will write off your debt and close their files if you can show that you are judgment proof.   If you are receiving Social Security money, I urge you to take time now – before a judgment creditor begins collection efforts – to protect your bank accounts.

______________________________

jginsbergJonathan Ginsberg has represented individuals in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases filed in Atlanta, Gainesville, Newnan and Rome (the Northern District of Georgia) for over 20 years. Consumer bankruptcy has become a document intensive, number-crunching process and Jonathan encourages all potential clients to educate themselves about the laws and the process of filing bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is and should always be considered as a last resort, but sometimes there is no other choice.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

July 28, 2019
By Robert (Bob) Schuman, Owner/Managing Broker, Network Financial Group I’m a mortgage broker. In that role, I see close up the immense relief that a homeowner feels when they file Chapter 13. They are no longer forced to deal with collection calls and a multitude of letters that are aggressive and intimidating, threatening to take their car, foreclose on their...
January 12, 2020
By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) The Seventh Circuit thought that it had finished dealing with the intersection of cars, fines, Chapter 13, and the City of Chicago when it rendered its decision earlier in 2019 in “Steenes I.” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554 . Alas, it was not to be,...
Members
August 22, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) While the best interests of creditors test is applicable upon modification of a Chapter 13 plan, post-petition acquired property of the estate is not included in such analysis in that such property would not be property of a Chapter 7 estate. (Somers) In re Taylor, 2021 WL 3118824 (Bankr....
Members
December 20, 2020
By Robert S. Thomas, II,1 Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of Maryland (Baltimore) All stakeholders strive to make the Chapter 13 program efficient and beneficial to all parties. The Chapter 13 program has evolved over the years to better serve debtors and creditors. This is due in part because of the remarkable actions taken daily by our Bankruptcy...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
October 9, 2022
First, breathe deep and try to relax. The Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative House Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, with minimal notice, set an oversight hearing for September 29, 2022. The subcommittee is charged to deal with matters relating to bankruptcy. The subject of the hearing was to be the “Oversight of the Bankruptcy Code, Part 2: Ensuring a Fresh...
November 17, 2019
By Alexander E. Schmidt, Law Clerk to the Honorable John P. Gustafson (Toledo, OH) As any attorney with an eye for case law can tell you, circuit-level opinions that decide matters of first impression deserve extra attention from practitioners. Not only do these opinions oftentimes illuminate the dark corners of the law, they can also raise or provide answers to...
Members
June 7, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) HAVEN Act applied to modification when plan was confirmed prior to Act becoming law. The debtor proposed a plan modification deleting from disposable income $1,789 monthly VA disability benefits. First concluding that the HAVEN Act was applicable law at time of this decision, nothing in the Act, its legislative history or the Official...
Members
September 20, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Chapter 13 debtors’ FDCPA claim was not “related to” bankruptcy case. After reopening closed case, the debtors filed adversary complaint against mortgage holders and servicers, alleging various claims for violation of discharge injunction, automatic stay and FDCPA. The complaint plausibly pleaded elements required for §§ 362(k) and 524(i), but the claims under FDCPA...
Members
May 19, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Homeowner association fees that obligate homeowners of condominium and planned unit developments can be a substantial obligation that accrue on a monthly basis. These obligations are generally a burden when a debtor files for bankruptcy relief. To be fair, homeowners’ associations provide a significant benefit to homeowners. Exterior maintenance,...
Members
gendron-1
September 17, 2023
“Perhaps the most obvious problem with this instructional language is that it refers to outdated services.”
Members