656 F. App'x 789
8th Cir.2016Background
- The government obtained a writ of garnishment under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA) to collect part of Bryan Behrens’s criminal restitution debt.
- Behrens moved for a hearing and for appointment of counsel and objected to the garnishment.
- The district court denied Behrens’s motions and proceeded with garnishment.
- On appeal Behrens argued (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying indictment (challenging the restitution order), (2) the indictment did not include a forfeiture count so garnishment was improper, and (3) he was not in default under the judgment’s installment payment schedule.
- The court of appeals rejected these arguments: FDCPA proceedings are not the forum to relitigate the validity of a restitution order; the action sought restitution collection not forfeiture; and the criminal judgment made the full amount immediately due and did not bar civil collection.
- The court also held denial of a hearing was harmless because the objections failed as a matter of law, and Behrens had no right to appointed counsel in FDCPA garnishment proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/Validity of restitution order | Behrens: district court lacked jurisdiction over original indictment, so restitution order invalid | Government: FDCPA proceedings cannot be used to attack validity of restitution order | Held: Rejects Behrens; challenges to restitution validity are not allowed in FDCPA garnishment proceedings |
| Forfeiture requirement | Behrens: indictment lacked forfeiture count, so garnishment improper | Government: This is collection of restitution, not forfeiture; indictment forfeiture irrelevant | Held: Rejects Behrens; garnishment was to collect restitution, not forfeiture |
| Installment payment schedule/default | Behrens: installment schedule means he was not in default and garnishment was premature | Government: Judgment stated full amount due at sentencing and did not bar civil collection under FDCPA | Held: Rejects Behrens; judgment made debt immediately enforceable and did not preclude garnishment |
| Denial of hearing and appointment of counsel | Behrens: denial of hearing and counsel violated his rights | Government: Hearing unnecessary because objections lack legal merit; no right to counsel in FDCPA; appointment discretionary | Held: Denial of hearing harmless (objections fail as a matter of law); no right to appointed counsel and court did not abuse discretion in refusing appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martinez, 812 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2015) (discussing limits on garnishment where restitution order did not create an immediately enforceable debt)
- United States v. Ekong, 518 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding installment plan in criminal judgment did not bar civil collection under FDCPA)
- United States v. Cohan, 798 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2015) (no right to appointed counsel in FDCPA garnishment proceedings)
- Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (standards for appointing counsel in civil matters)