WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 735

Increases the New York state housing finance agency bonding authority

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Brian Kavanagh

Massachusetts would create a Debt Collection Fairness Act that increases wage exemptions from garnishment and adds a hardship-based process to expand exemptions.

SUBSTITUTED BY A420
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 735

Summary — S.735 (Debt Collection Fairness Act) — Massachusetts

Note: The bill text provided contains mixed metadata (some items reference other jurisdictions or titles). The legislative language below is from a Massachusetts senate docket (Senate No. 735 / Docket No. 1209, filed 1/15/2025) titled “An Act relative to fairness in debt collection” and presented by Sen. James B. Eldridge et al. The bill is recorded as “SUBSTITUTED BY A420.” Readers should verify the official bill page for final text and status.

Purpose / Intent

To reform and strengthen consumer protections in debt collection in Massachusetts by (1) defining terms used in consumer debt collection, (2) increasing the amount of a debtor’s earnings that are exempt from wage attachment/garnishment to protect household income, and (3) creating streamlined procedures for debtors to claim additional exemptions based on financial hardship.

Key provisions and changes

  • New chapter inserted into the General Laws: Chapter 93M — “Debt Collection Fairness Act.”
  • Definitions: Establishes statutory definitions for key terms including “consumer,” “consumer debt,” “creditor,” “debt buyer,” “debt collector,” “charge-off,” “earnings,” “execution,” “exempt,” “garnishment,” “residential mortgage loan,” and “trustee.”
  • Wage exemption from garnishment (Section 2):
    • Where a consumer’s earnings are attached to satisfy a judgment for a consumer debt, wages equal to the greater of:
    • 90% of the debtor’s gross weekly wages; or
    • 65 times the greater of the federal minimum hourly wage (29 U.S.C. §206(a)(1)) or the Massachusetts state minimum hourly wage (ch. 151, §1) in effect at the time, are exempt (i.e., not subject to attachment/garnishment). The exemption is adjusted pro rata for non-weekly pay periods.
    • Example (illustrative): If the state minimum wage is $15/hr, the 65× calculation equals $975/week; the debtor’s exemption would be the greater of 90% of their weekly gross pay or $975.
  • Financial hardship procedure:
    • Debtors may file a court-prepared “claim of undue financial hardship” form seeking additional wage exemptions beyond the statutory floor.
    • Courts must hold a hearing as soon as practicable after such a filing to determine the total exempt amount.
  • Priority of multiple attachments:
    • Where multiple garnishment orders are served on a trustee for the same consumer, the earliest-served order has priority. If the higher-priority order consumes available garnishable earnings, lower-priority orders cannot garnish additional earnings.
  • Geographic and employer scope:
    • Protections apply to consumers whose physical place of employment is in Massachusetts, even if their employer has offices outside the Commonwealth.
  • Exceptions:
    • The section does not apply to enforcement of alimony, maintenance or child support orders; federal law limits on attachments for support remain applicable.
  • The provided text is truncated — additional sections (penalties, procedures, or other exemptions) may follow in the full bill.

Who is affected

  • Protected: Consumers (natural persons) in Massachusetts facing collection actions or judgments for consumer debts (non-mortgage consumer debts). Wage-earners benefit from higher exemption thresholds and a formal hardship review process.
  • Impacted entities: creditors, debt buyers, debt collectors, employers/ trustees who must comply with garnishment priority and exemption rules, and the courts (new administrative/hearing duties).
  • Not covered: residential mortgage loans and certain condominium/HOA common expense obligations per the bill’s definition exclusions.

Legislative status & procedural notes (from provided record)

  • Filed / Docketed: 1/15/2025 (Senate Docket No. 1209 / Senate No. 735).
  • Sponsors / Petitioners (per Massachusetts docket): James B. Eldridge; Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell; Michael J. Barrett; Joan B. Lovely.
  • Committee activity (mixed records in file):
    • Read twice and referred to committee; referred to Committee on Financial Services; hearings scheduled (record shows a hearing set for 04/15/2025).
    • The bill file indicates it was “SUBSTITUTED BY A420.” There is also notation of a new draft (S2537) accompanying the bill.
  • Users should confirm the latest status on the Massachusetts Legislature website (bill S.735 / A.420 / S.2537) to see whether S.735 remains active, has been replaced by A420, or has amendments.

Notes & caveats

  • The supplied metadata appears to mix unrelated information (e.g., references to New York housing finance, federal sponsors). This summary is limited to the Massachusetts debt-collection language provided.
  • The text excerpt is truncated; other important provisions (enforcement mechanisms, penalties, procedural timelines, or consumer notice requirements) may appear in the remainder of the bill or in the substitute A420.
  • For implementation details or legal interpretation (e.g., exact calculation of exempt amounts for varying pay periods, interaction with federal law), consult the final statute text and legislative counsel.

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

Sign in to ask a question.