About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-204109 1 (1981-08-19)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabjbn0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                     UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548


Ovzcr. oF GFNERAL COUNSEL

         B-204109                            August 19, 1981





         John A. Howard, Esq.
         1367 East Sixth Street
         Cleveland, Ohio  44114

         Der Mr. Howard:

              We refer to your June 1, 1981 letter, wherein you call
         our attention to the Judgment Entry (copy of which you
         attached) in the case of Kienzle v. Kienzle, Court of Common
         Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
         Case No. 80D-117886. You specifically request that we
         comply with paragraph 13 of the Judgment Entry which orders
         Richard G. Kienzle's employer, the General Accounting Office,
         to withhold $153 each biweekly pay period until further order
         of the court and forward this amount to the Clerk of Court,
         Alimony Section, Justice Center, Cleveland, Ohio. For reasons
         given below we are unable to comply with this provision of
         the Judgment Entry.

              Under 42 U.S.C. § 659(a), the United States has waived
         its sovereign immunity to a limited extent to provide for
         the enforcement of state writs (in the nature) of garnish-
         ment against the United States (or an agency thereof) as
         a garnishee when the garnishment is to enforce the legal
         obligation of an employee of the United States to provide
         child support or alimony. See, e.g., Overman v. United
         States, 563 F.2d 1287, 1291-1292 (8th Cir. 1977). This
         limited waiver of sovereign immunity does not create a
         new statutory right under Federal law to garnish Federal
         employees' wages but rather merely makes the United States
         subject to the jurisdiction of a state court for garnish-
         ment proceedings under state law. See Diaz v. Diaz, 568
         F.2d 1061 (4th Cir. 1977).

              Accordingly, for a Federal agency to honor a writ of
         garnishment, the writ of garnishment, among other things,
         must be to enforce a legal obligation to pay alimony or
         child support, and it must be in conformity with state law.

              With the above principles in mind, the reasons for
         our inability to comply with the Judgment Entry are that it
         contains internal inconsistencies which make the purpose

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most