States That Prohibit or Limit Bank Account Garnishment
No state fully prohibits bank account garnishment in all circumstances. Every state allows a judgment creditor to garnish non-exempt funds from a debtor’s bank account after obtaining a court judgment. The differences among states lie in three areas: whether the state prohibits wage garnishment for consumer debts, whether deposited wages retain their exempt status after deposit, and whether the state provides a fixed-dollar exemption that automatically protects a portion of any bank balance from garnishment.
Federal law establishes a floor of protection that applies in every state. Under 31 CFR Part 212, banks must automatically protect up to two months of directly deposited federal benefit payments (Social Security, SSI, VA benefits, Railroad Retirement, and federal civilian and military retirement) from any garnishment order. This automatic protection operates identically regardless of state law. The state-by-state differences discussed below apply to wages, general funds, and other non-federal deposits. Understanding how these protections interact is central to protecting a bank account from creditors.
Three Dimensions of Protection
State garnishment laws vary across three independent dimensions, and each affects bank account exposure differently. A state can be strong on one dimension and weak on another.
Wage garnishment restrictions determine whether a creditor can garnish wages directly from the employer. Four states prohibit wage garnishment for consumer debts entirely: Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In these states, a creditor cannot intercept wages before they reach the debtor’s bank account. However, this does not necessarily protect the wages once deposited.
Traced-wage protection determines whether wages retain their exempt character after deposit into a bank account. At least thirteen jurisdictions explicitly extend wage protection after deposit: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Puerto Rico. In these states, the debtor can claim deposited wages as exempt if the funds can be traced to their source. The tracing burden falls on the debtor.
Fixed-dollar bank account exemptions protect a set amount in any bank account regardless of the source of funds. These exemptions vary from a few hundred dollars to several thousand. Some are self-executing (the bank must protect the amount automatically), while others require the debtor to file a claim after garnishment.
Speak With a Florida Asset Protection Attorney
Jon Alper and Gideon Alper have designed and implemented asset protection structures for clients since 1991. Consultations are confidential and conducted by phone or Zoom.
Book a Consultation
State-by-State Comparison
The following table compares the three dimensions of protection across all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The wage garnishment column reflects the maximum percentage of disposable earnings a creditor can garnish for consumer debts. The traced-wage column indicates whether deposited wages retain exempt status. The bank account exemption column shows any fixed-dollar amount automatically or claimably protected from garnishment.
| State | Wage Garnishment (Consumer Debt) | Traced Wages Protected After Deposit? | Bank Account Exemption |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Federal standard (25%) | No | None |
| Alaska | Federal standard | No | None |
| Arizona | 25% of disposable earnings | No | $150 per account in bank |
| Arkansas | Greater of: $500/month or federal standard | No | $500 (personal property wildcard) |
| California | 25% of disposable earnings | Yes | ~$1,914 (self-executing, adjusted annually) |
| Colorado | 20% of disposable earnings | Yes | None (but traced wages protected) |
| Connecticut | 25% of disposable earnings | Yes | None (but traced wages protected) |
| Delaware | 15% of wages | Not addressed | Prohibits bank garnishment entirely |
| D.C. | Greater of: $580.50/week or federal standard | No | $850 |
| Florida | 100% exempt if head of household ≤$750/week | Yes (6 months) | $1,000 (wildcard, personal property) |
| Georgia | 25% of disposable earnings | No | None |
| Hawaii | 5% of first $100, 10% of next $100, 20% of earnings over $200/month | No | None |
| Idaho | 25% of disposable earnings | Yes | None (but traced wages protected) |
| Illinois | Greater of: 85% of gross wages or 45× state minimum wage | No | $4,000 (wildcard) |
| Indiana | Federal standard | No | None |
| Iowa | Greater of: $1,000/quarter or federal standard | Yes | $1,000 (personal property wildcard) |
| Kansas | Federal standard | No | None |
| Kentucky | Federal standard | No | None |
| Louisiana | Federal standard | No | None |
| Maine | Federal standard | No | None |
| Maryland | Greater of: $290.63/week or 75% of disposable wages | No | $6,000 (wildcard) |
| Massachusetts | 85% of gross wages exempt | No | $2,500 (wildcard) |
| Michigan | Federal standard | No | None |
| Minnesota | Greater of: $406.25/week or federal standard | Yes | None (but traced wages protected) |
| Mississippi | 25% of disposable earnings | No | $10,000 (personal property wildcard) |
| Missouri | Federal standard | No | None |
| Montana | Federal standard | Yes | None (but traced wages protected) |
| Nebraska | Greater of: federal standard or 85% of disposable earnings | Yes | None (but traced wages protected) |
| Nevada | 18% of wages if debtor earns ≤$770/week | No | None |
| New Hampshire | Federal standard; no continuous garnishment | No | $1,000 |
| New Jersey | 10% of income if debtor earns ≤250% of poverty level | No | $1,000 |
| New Mexico | Federal standard | No | $2,000 (personal property wildcard) |
| New York | 10% of gross income or 25% of disposable earnings (lesser) | No | $2,664–$3,600 (self-executing, based on minimum wage) |
| North Carolina | Prohibited for consumer debts | Yes | $500 (wildcard) |
| North Dakota | Federal standard | No | None |
| Ohio | Greater of: federal standard or $550/week | No | $525 (personal property wildcard) |
| Oklahoma | Greater of: 75% of disposable earnings or federal standard | Yes | None (but traced wages protected) |
| Oregon | Greater of: $338/week or 75% of disposable earnings | Yes | $2,500 (self-executing under 2024 Family Financial Protection Act) |
| Pennsylvania | Prohibited for consumer debts | N/A (wages not garnished) | None |
| Rhode Island | Federal standard | No | None |
| South Carolina | Prohibited for consumer debts | N/A (wages not garnished) | None |
| South Dakota | Federal standard | No | None |
| Tennessee | Federal standard | No | None |
| Texas | Prohibited for consumer debts | N/A (wages not garnished) | None |
| Utah | Federal standard | No | None |
| Vermont | Federal standard | No | $400 |
| Virginia | Federal standard | No | $5,000 (homestead exemption applicable to personal property) |
| Washington | Greater of: 80% of disposable earnings or 35× state minimum wage | No | None |
| West Virginia | 20% of disposable earnings | No | None |
| Wisconsin | Greater of: 80% of disposable earnings or federal standard | No | None |
| Wyoming | Federal standard | No | None |
States with the Strongest Bank Account Protections
A handful of states combine protections across multiple dimensions, creating relatively strong shields for bank account funds.
Delaware stands alone as the only state that prohibits bank account garnishment entirely for consumer debts. A judgment creditor in Delaware cannot serve a garnishment order on a bank to freeze a debtor’s account. Wage garnishment is permitted at 15% of wages, but once wages are deposited, the bank account itself cannot be garnished. This protection is the broadest of any state.
Florida provides strong but conditional protection. The head of household wage exemption protects 100% of wages for debtors earning $750 per week or less who support a dependent, and deposited wages retain their exempt status for six months. Married couples benefit from tenancy by the entirety bank accounts, which are presumed under Florida Statute 655.79 and cannot be garnished by individual creditors of either spouse.
The combination of the wage exemption, traced-wage protection, and entirety ownership makes Florida one of the most protective states for bank accounts—but only for debtors who qualify for these specific protections. Single debtors with non-exempt income have limited protection beyond the $1,000 wildcard.
New York provides a self-executing bank account exemption of $2,664 to $3,600 (depending on the applicable minimum wage), meaning the bank must automatically leave that amount accessible without any action by the debtor. Combined with strong wage garnishment limits (the lesser of 10% of gross income or 25% of disposable earnings), New York offers meaningful baseline protection even for debtors who do not receive federal benefits.
Oregon enacted the Family Financial Protection Act in 2024, which requires banks to automatically protect $2,500 in any garnished account before conducting the federal benefit lookback. Oregon also protects traced wages after deposit and limits wage garnishment to the greater of $338 per week or 75% of disposable earnings.
Illinois offers a $4,000 wildcard exemption that can be applied to bank account funds, and limits wage garnishment to the greater of 85% of gross wages or 45 times the state minimum wage—which for most low- and moderate-income workers effectively exempts all wages from garnishment.
States with the Weakest Bank Account Protections
Several states provide minimal protection beyond the federal floor.
Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah all follow the federal standard for wage garnishment (25% of disposable earnings) and provide no fixed-dollar bank account exemption and no traced-wage protection. In these states, once wages are deposited, they lose their exempt character entirely. The only protection for bank account funds comes from the federal automatic lookback for directly deposited government benefits.
Why State Protections Have Limited Value for Out-of-State Debtors
Debtors sometimes consider opening accounts in states with stronger protections. The practical value of this strategy is limited for several reasons.
Garnishment jurisdiction generally follows the debtor’s domicile, not the bank’s location. A Florida creditor seeking to garnish a Florida debtor’s bank account in Texas will typically domesticate the Florida judgment in Texas and serve the garnishment order on the Texas bank under Texas procedural rules. The substantive exemptions that apply are usually those of the debtor’s home state, not the state where the bank is located. Courts have split on which state’s exemptions govern in interstate garnishment disputes, but most follow the debtor’s domicile.
A 2022 CFPB consent order against a national bank reinforced that banks must apply the garnishment restrictions of the state where the account is located, creating an additional compliance layer. The interaction between the debtor’s home-state exemptions and the bank’s state-of-location rules remains unsettled and varies by jurisdiction.
Creditors also use post-judgment discovery to identify out-of-state accounts. A debtor who opens an account in another state must still disclose it if asked under oath in post-judgment interrogatories or at a debtor’s examination. Failing to disclose carries contempt sanctions.
How Florida Compares
Florida’s bank account protections are among the strongest in the country for debtors who qualify, but the protections are conditional rather than universal.
The head of household wage exemption is the most generous wage protection of any state that still permits garnishment—100% of wages are exempt for qualifying debtors earning $750 per week or less. Florida is one of thirteen jurisdictions that explicitly protect deposited wages, extending the exemption for six months after deposit. The tracing framework that governs these deposits determines whether the protection holds up at a court hearing.
Tenancy by the entirety provides a powerful additional layer for married couples. Unlike the wage exemption, entirety protection does not depend on income level, head of household status, or tracing. It depends on the ownership structure of the account and the nature of the creditor’s claim (individual vs. joint).
The $1,000 wildcard exemption under Florida Statute 222.25 provides minimal protection for debtors who do not qualify for the wage exemption or entirety ownership. For single debtors with non-exempt income and no federal benefits, Florida’s bank account protections are among the weakest—limited to that $1,000 wildcard and whatever federal benefit protection applies under Part 212.
For Florida debtors whose domestic protections are insufficient given their creditor exposure and liquid asset levels, offshore account structures provide an additional layer of protection that operates independently of any state garnishment framework.