Rule 3253.Interrogatories in attachment.

Explanatory Comment. Numerous federal and state statutes provide that funds paid to individuals pursuant to the statutes are exempt from execution, levy and attachment. Perhaps the premier statute in this regard is the Social Security Act which provides, 42 U.S.C. § 407: § 407. Assignment; amendment of section (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law. Section 407 provides that not only are future payments exempt from execution but so too are the funds once they have been deposited in the recipient’s account in a bank or other financial institution. Prior to the present amendments, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure did not comply with these provisions. The writ of execution under Rule 3252, paragraph 2(b), provided that ‘‘the garnishee is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant and from delivering any prop- erty of the defendant or otherwise disposing thereof.’’ The writ contained no exception for funds of the defendant which are exempt from execution. In addition, the defendant was required to claim the exemption by filing a claim under Rule 3123.1. The present amendments to the execution rules address this problem. Under the amended rules, the judgment creditor rather than the defendant has the burden of raising an issue with respect to exempt payments within the scope of new Rule 3111.1. The defendant need not file a claim for exemption as exempt funds are not attached. The amendments are as follows: 1. New Rule 3111.1 is to be promulgated, explicitly stating that funds of the defendant on deposit in certain accounts with a bank or other financial institution are exempt from execution. Social security payments are not named. Rather, the rule speaks in terms of ‘‘funds on deposit in a bank or other financial institution in an account in which funds are deposited electronically on a recurring basis and are identified as being funds that upon deposit are exempt from execution, levy or attach- ment under Pennsylvania or federal law.’’ 2. The form of the writ of execution set forth in Rule 3252 is amended by incorporating the lan- guage of new Rule 3111.1(1). New paragraph 2(c) of the writ advises the garnishee that the attach- ment does not include the defendant’s funds in an account which exempt funds are deposited elec- tronically on a recurring basis. 3. Rule 3253 governing interrogatories to the garnishee is amended by adding new interroga- tory no. 7. This interrogatory inquires of a bank or other financial institution as garnishee whether the defendant had ‘‘funds on deposit in an account in which funds are deposited electronically on a recur- ring basis and which are identified as being funds that upon deposit are exempt from execution, levy or attachment under Pennsylvania or federal law.’’ The garnishee is then required to ‘‘identify each account and state the reason for the exemption, the amount being withheld under each exemption and the entity electronically depositing those funds on a recurring basis.’’ 4. The prior practice under Rule 3146(b) was that ‘‘the prothonotary, on praecipe of the plain- tiff, shall enter judgment against the garnishee for the property of the defendant admitted in the answer to interrogatories to be in the garnishee’s possession.’’ Rule 3146(b) has been amended by adding new paragraph (2) providing that if the answer of a bank or other financial institution to inter- rogatory no. 7 identifies one or more accounts as containing exempt funds, ‘‘the prothonotary, in the absence of an order of court, shall not enter judgment pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subdivision as to funds of any account of the defendant that is identified in the garnishee’s answer’’ to the inter- rogatory. 5. Section 8123 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8123, provides for a $300 monetary exemp- tion. This exemption is treated separately in new Rule 3111.1(2), in new paragraph (2)(c)(ii) of the writ of execution prescribed by Rule 3252 and in a new interrogatory to the garnishee under Rule 3253, interrogatory no. 8. The amendments provide a similar procedure for the $300 monetary exemption as for recurring electronic deposits described above: $300 or less in an account of the defendant is exempt from attachment, the writ of execution notifies the garnishee that $300 or less in an account of the defendant is not attached and interrogatory no. 8 inquires of the garnishee concern- ing the funds of the defendant on deposit in accounts with the garnishee. As the $300 amount is exempt from attachment, the defendant need not claim it under Rule 3123.1 governing claim of exemption. Explanatory Comment—2010 New Rule 3111.1 was promulgated in 2007 to address the failure of the rules of civil procedure to protect funds held in accounts of banks and other financial institutions that are exempt from execu- tion, levy, and attachment pursuant to federal and state legislation. The current rule protects from attachment all funds in an account in which any funds are deposited electronically on a recurring basis and are identified as being funds that upon deposit are exempt from execution, levy, or attachment. The amendment to subdivision (1) of Rule 3111.1 provides that only the first $10,000 held in an account may not be attached whenever the account includes any funds that are identified as being exempt from execution, levy, or attachment. If an account holder believes the remainder is also exempt, he or she may petition the court for relief. Under new subdivision (2) any funds that exceed $10,000 in an account may be attached unless all funds in the account are identified as exempt funds.