Court dismisses appeal against dismissal of garnishment order for non-monetary benefits like car allowance and housing. The court rules that statutory garnishment provisions only apply to monetary wages, not in-kind benefits. Consequently, the garnishment order was invalidly issued and the appeal is rejected. The court held that the garnishment statute strictly limits its scope to monetary compensation, excluding non-monetary benefits such as car allowances and housing benefits from the definition of wages subject to garnishment. Since the creditor failed to establish that the debtor received monetary wages, the garnishment order was invalidly issued. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to revoke the garnishment. The decision clarifies that statutory garnishment provisions strictly limit their scope to monetary compensation, excluding non-monetary benefits such as car allowances and housing benefits from the definition of wages subject to garnishment. Since the creditor failed to establish that the debtor received monetary wages, the garnishment order was invalidly issued. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to revoke the garnishment. The decision clarifies that statutory garnishment provisions strictly limit their scope to monetary compensation, excluding non-monetary benefits such as car allowances and housing benefits from the definition of wages subject to garnishment. Since the creditor failed to establish that the debtor received monetary wages, the garnishment order was invalidly issued. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to revoke the garnishment.
Finland (FI)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the creditor's appeal against the magistrate's decision to revoke a garnishment order. The creditor had attempted to garnish non-monetary benefits like a car allowance and housing benefit, but the magistrate ruled these do not constitute wages under the relevant statute. The court agreed, noting the law only permits garnishment of monetary wages, not in-kind benefits, and no monetary wage was alleged or proven. Thus, the garnishment was invalid, and the appeal was rejected.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedUL 4:18b; UL 4:6b: Garnishment statutes strictly apply only to monetary wages and do not extend to non-monetary benefits such as car allowances or housing benefits.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
Ulosottomies oli valtiolle maksettavaksi tuomitun velan suorittamiseksi ulosmitannut laskennallisen osan A:n työnantajaltaan B:ltä saamasta palkasta, joka käsitti ainoastaan n.s. autoedun ja työsuhdeasunnon mutta ei lainkaan rahapalkkaa, ja antanut B:lle ulosmittauksen perusteella maksukiellon. B oli laiminlyönyt pidätyksen suorittamisen, minkä vuoksi B:ltä oli ulosmitattu pidättämättä jätetystä määrästä mikrotietokone.
B:n valitettua tästä ulosmittauksesta maistraatti oli kumonnut sen, koska UL 4:18b tarkoitettuun maksukieltoon sisältyvä määräys pidättää ulosottoon menevä osa velallisen palkasta ei voinut velvoittaa työnantajaa muuhun suoritukseen, kuin pidättää ja suorittaa tuo osa velallisen rahana maksettavasta palkasta (tai UL 4:9b tarkoittamassa tapauksessa ja siinä säädetyssä järjestyksessä velallisen palkaksi arvioidusta rahamäärästä) ja UL 4:6b ainoastaan määräsi luontaisedut huomioitaviksi palkan määrää laskettaessa eikä asiassa ollut edes väitetty, että A saisi B:ltä myös rahapalkkaa.
Lääninveroviraston valitettua mainitusta päätöksestä HO katsoi, ettei ollut syytä muuttaa maistraatin päätöstä.
Läsnä: Poukka, Mäkelä ja Jalonen Esittelijä: Koskimies
KKO:n ratkaisu: Ei valituslupaa Päätös n:o 3357/18.12.1985