WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5564

Civil procedure: other; regulation and licensing of earned wage access service providers; provide for. Amends sec. 4012 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.4012). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5558'26

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Greg Alexander and 8 co-sponsors

Garnishment rules are updated to align with earned wage access licensing, clarifying priorities and procedures for paying debts from periodic wages within that regulatory framework

referred to second reading
#civilprocedure:other
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5564

Summary of Michigan House Bill 5564 (2025-2026)

Note: HB 5564 ties to HB 5558 and is part of a package creating Earned Wage Access Services Act licensing and regulation.

1) Purpose and Intent

  • HB 5564 amends the garnishment provisions of the Revised Judicature Act (Section 4012) to address enforcement in context with earned wage access services licenses created by HB 5558.
  • The overarching policy framework (HB 5558) would regulate earned wage access services by requiring licenses, consumer protections, fees, and enforcement mechanisms. HB 5564 aligns wage-garnishment processes with the broader regulatory regime for these services.

2) Key Provisions and Changes (HB 5564)

  • Amends Section 4012 to govern garnishment of periodic payments (e.g., wages, salary, commissions, and other earnings) and clarifies priority among multiple garnishments:
    • Garnishments of periodic payments stay in effect until the judgment balance (including interest and costs) is satisfied.
    • Garnishee liability is reduced to the extent there are other garnishments with higher priority or earlier date when same defendant is subject to multiple garnishments.
    • Superior priorities include:
    • An order of income withholding under the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act.
    • A levy to satisfy a tax liability.
  • Priority rules continue to apply even if a garnishment is suspended and later reinstated or set aside.
  • Validity and service rules for garnishments (and notices of failure) remain, including required service according to court rules.
  • Plaintiff obligations if a garnishment is active (e.g., semiannual statements of the remaining balance; release upon full payment within 21 days after final balance paid).
  • Conditions for seeking default against a garnishee, procedures to cure defaults, and procedures for default judgments and potential reductions or set-asides.
  • Fee: A $35 fee paid by the plaintiff to the garnishee when service is made (subject to statutory exceptions).
  • The section clarifies that it does not apply to:
    • Income withholding orders, tax levies, certain unemployment or earned wage access-related activities, or “any business transacted under an earned wage access services license.”
  • Definitions of “periodic payments” include wages, salary, commissions, and other earnings payable during the garnishment period; exclusions cover certain bank-related payments and interest in some accounts.

3) Who/What Would Be Affected

  • Affected: Garnishee (employers, banks, or other entities holding periodic payments) and plaintiffs (creditors) pursuing garnishments in Michigan courts.
  • The bill interacts with the Earned Wage Access Services Act (HB 5558) by ensuring garnishment rules apply consistently alongside earned wage access service licensing and enforcement.
  • Exclusions indicate that traditional tax and income-withholding mechanisms, and certain payroll service activities, operate outside this garnishment framework.

4) Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Enactment condition: HB 5564 includes an enacting section tied to HB 5558; HB 5564’s provisions take effect only if HB 5558 becomes law.
  • General process: Garnishment proceedings follow existing Michigan court rules, with added alignment to priority rules and the ongoing requirement to notify and release upon full payment.
  • Relationship to licensing: The enforcement context for garnishments may be influenced by the licensing regime and potential penalties or remedies under HB 5558 for licensees that fail to comply with wage-access-related duties.

5) Fiscal and Administrative Considerations (as described in related analysis)

  • HB 5558 (the Earned Wage Access Services Act) would require the Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS) to license earned wage access providers, impose fees, and administer compliance, with potential fines and enforcement provisions.
  • HB 5564 itself does not create new fees or fiscal burdens but interacts with the regulatory framework established by HB 5558.
  • The combined package could have indirect fiscal effects related to enforcement, court workload, and potential penalties or fines administered under the licensing regime.

6) Additional Context

  • HB 5558 and related companion bills (HBs 5559-5569) establish licensing, consumer protections, and regulatory oversight for earned wage access services. HB 5564’s garnishment provisions are designed to operate within that framework, ensuring orderly debt collection while recognizing the regulated status of wage-access providers.

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison with current law highlighting exact statutory changes or a plain-language FAQ for readers.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.