A St. Louis Guardian Ad Litem opposed a divorcee's bid to restrict the garnishment of her wages for attorney’s fees to 10 percent.
On Jan. 25, GAL Robert Hamilton filed an objection to Caroline Less’ exemption claim and called for a hearing that is scheduled for Feb. 16 at 9:15 a.m.
Hamilton was reacting to an Affidavit for Head of Household Exemption of Wage Garnishment in which Less cited Missouri Revised Statutes 525.030.
“I am the head of a family … I am entitled to a Head of Household exemption requiring only 10% of my wages to be withheld pursuant to the garnishment notice previously served,” she wrote.
In the Garnishment Application and Order, issued on Jan. 18, Hamilton is demanding $8,958.04.
“I set a payment plan with him because I didn’t have the money,” Less alleges. “Now, he’s trying to completely drain me and Judge Heggie is allowing him to steal from me.”
As previously reported in the St. Louis Record, the underlying proceedings concerned the custody and care of Less and Melchior Van Den Bergh's 11-year-old daughter after their 2016 divorce. Less shares physical custody of her daughter with Van Den Bergh. But Van Den Bergh was granted sole legal custody.
In addition to Hamilton, an attorney who represented Less’s ex-husband, Van Den Bergh, in the former couple’s divorce proceedings also filed a Garnishment Application and Order, which was issued on Jan. 11.
Susan Hais, an attorney with Cordell & Cordell Law, a father’s rights law firm in St. Louis, is demanding $10,708.59.
“This is so wrong,” Less told the St. Louis Record. “They are trying to take everything from me.”
In response to the garnishment order issuance, Less filed a Motion to Quash and Terminate Garnishment in which she alleges wrongful garnishment because Hais included $3,528.04 of post-judgment interest.
“All garnishments thus far issued by Hais, Hais & Goldberger, and Cordell & Cordell, which included a post-judgment interest have negatively impacted mom's finances and caused incredible financial hardship, especially given Mom's two years of no income because of the disastrous impact COVID-19 had on the tourism and travel industry,” Less wrote. “Opposing counsel's application of post-judgment interest is therefore illegal, in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.”
In 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District ruled in Dennis v Riezman that post-judgment interest must be stated in the judgment before it can be assessed against a party and Less alleges post-judgment interest was not stated in their Motion to Modify the Judgment, which lead to an award of $10,000 for opposing counsel.
"They cannot retroactively apply post-judgment interest,” Less stated in her motion.
Less further requests the court sanction opposing counsel for alleged intimidation tactics, misrepresentation of the facts, and manipulation of the law to steal additional monies from her.
“Opposing counsel has continued to harass mom by implementing egregious amounts of post-judgment interest, which has created ongoing financial hardship, duress, and emotional stress,” Less concluded in her pleading. “Post-judgment interest was never awarded and violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.”
Neither Hamilton nor Hais responded to requests for comment.