[WSBAPT] Intersection of WA Exemptions, BK and Garnishment

[Mark McClure, J.D. - McClure Law Group]

Never had a problem exempting the funds in full when they hit the account.
$10k is good.

Mark C. McClure

*Managing Attorney *Law Office of Mark McClure, PS

*"Why Retire With Debt?"*1103 West Meeker Street, #101
Kent, WA 98032
Office:  253.631.6484
Email: Mark at McClureLawGroup.com
*Notice of Unavailability:*

*December 22, 2025 – December 26, 2025*

*December 31, 2025 – January 02, 2025*
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:* This email contains legal stuff. If you are not
the intended recipient you could get into a lot of trouble if you read it,
and even more trouble if you tell someone else about it. So, the best thing
to do is ignore it and forget you ever saw it. Thank you.



On Mon, Dec 29, 2025, 5:53 PM Dave Culbertson <
dculbertson at culbertsonlawoffice.com> wrote:

> Hi, Listmates.
>
> I’m a little behind the times on this question. When they were making
> changes to the WA exemptions around 2020, I was away from the law and
> wasn’t paying much attention. This was probably discussed and commented on
> at the time, but it was off my radar.
>
> I’m prepping a BK petition for a client, he has about 3,000 in the bank
> account. I’d like to apply the WA wild-card exemption in 6.15.010(d)(ii)
> <https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=6.15.010> to it, which is
> now up to 10,000 for “any personal property”.
>
> BUT—the statute makes an exception for “except personal earnings as
> provided under RCW 6.15.050
> <http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=6.15.050>(1)”, which in turn
> says “Wages, salary, compensation can only be exempted in BK to the same
> extent as under the garnishment statutes”.  The garnishment statute allows
> a debtor to exempt 50/75/80% of their earnings per week, depending on the
> category of debt.
>
> So—does this mean my client similarly can only exempt 50/75/80%  of the
> money in his bank account in the BK, given that it all comes from wages
> originally? That seems incongruous with the overall structure of BK and
> garnishment—it doesn’t seem like they should intersect in this way. Since
> the BK is eliminating the debt, it would also eliminate the right to
> garnish, so why create this connection and limitation? But the language is
> there, and the meaning is unclear to me.
>
> Just wanting to make sure I don’t hear a bear trap snap shut on my
> clients’ ankle...
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave Culbertson
>
>
>
> *The Law Office of Davisson Culbertson*
>
> PO 20403
>
> Seattle, WA 98102
>
>
>
> *Phone: *(206) 478-8134
>
> *FAX: *(866) 867-7796
>
> *dculbertson at culbertsonlawoffice.com*
> <dculbertson at culbertsonlawoffice.com>
>
>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20251229/bad8223e/attachment.html>