South Dakota
South Dakota Debt Collection Laws: The 20% Garnishment Cap and 120-Day Lien
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 12, 2026). · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

South Dakota has no wage-garnishment ban and no state income tax, and its garnishment formula is more protective than the federal floor most states rely on. A creditor still has to sue on the debt, win a judgment, and get a garnishment order from the court before an employer withholds anything, and as everywhere, most South Dakota garnishments trace back to a default judgment because nobody answered the lawsuit.
How Much of Your Paycheck Can Be Garnished in South Dakota
Under SDCL 21-18-51, the maximum garnishment for any workweek is the lesser of two amounts: 20 percent of disposable earnings, or the amount by which disposable earnings exceed 40 times the greater of South Dakota's own state minimum wage or the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1) "as amended and in effect on July 24, 2009," minus $25 per week for each dependent family member, other than the debtor, living with the debtor. Note that the statute pins its federal component to the July 24, 2009 rate of $7.25 rather than to whatever the federal minimum wage happens to be later, so a future act of Congress raising the federal wage would not by itself lift South Dakota's exempt floor. That $25 dependent reduction applies only to the second prong of the test, not to the flat 20 percent cap.
That formula is more protective on two counts than the federal CCPA standard most states default to: 20 percent is lower than the federal 25 percent ceiling, and the 40-times multiplier is higher than the federal 30-times multiplier, applied against whichever minimum wage is greater. Our wage garnishment calculator shows that federal 25%/30x standard for comparison; South Dakota's own stricter 20%/40x formula above is what actually applies. Because South Dakota's own state minimum wage is indexed and adjusted annually, and runs above the frozen $7.25 figure, the 40-times multiplier in practice applies against South Dakota's higher wage rather than the federal one, pushing the exempt floor up further. The exact current dollar value of that floor changes each year with South Dakota's minimum wage; check the Department of Labor and Regulation's current figure before relying on a specific number.
South Dakota garnishments also run longer than in many states. Under SDCL 21-18-14.1, a garnishee summons creates a continuing lien: the garnishee must keep withholding the nonexempt portion of earnings through the last payroll period ending on or before 120 days from the garnishee summons' effective date, or until the judgment is satisfied, or until employment ends, whichever happens first.
Child and spousal support withholding sits outside this cap entirely, running instead under South Dakota's own support-garnishment section, SDCL 21-18-52, which adopts the ceilings Congress set in 15 U.S.C. 1673(b): 50 percent of disposable earnings if the individual is supporting another spouse or child, 60 percent if not, each rising another 5 points for arrears older than 12 weeks. That same section adds that "no court of this state may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section."
Bank Accounts and Other Exemptions
South Dakota has no bank-account-specific exemption statute. Instead, its general personal-property wildcard exemption, SDCL 43-45-4, can be claimed against non-exempt personal property, which includes money sitting in a bank account, but it is not self-executing; the debtor or an attorney has to affirmatively select and claim it, and the property has to be appraised as the statute requires. Beyond that wildcard, directly deposited federal benefits, Social Security, VA, and similar payments, carry the automatic federal two-month protection under 31 CFR Part 212, covered in our guide to whether Social Security can be garnished.

Can You Be Fired Over a Garnishment in South Dakota?
We did not find a South Dakota statute that extends job protection beyond the federal one-garnishment rule in 15 U.S.C. Section 1674, which protects an employee from discharge only for garnishment tied to a single debt. Treat the federal floor as the operative protection in South Dakota unless a state law changes that.
State Tax Debts: No Income Tax, but Property Can Still Be Seized
South Dakota has no state income tax, so there is no South Dakota analog to the payroll-withholding tax garnishments other states run. That does not mean other state tax debts, such as unpaid sales or use tax, go uncollected. Under SDCL Chapter 10-56 and SDCL 10-59-13, once a tax lien is filed, the Secretary of Revenue can direct the county treasurer to issue a distress warrant, and the sheriff then collects by seizing and selling personal property. The statute expressly identifies checking, savings, and similar bank accounts as personal property subject to that seizure. This is a property-seizure mechanism, not a payroll-percentage garnishment, which is a meaningfully different process from how most other states collect delinquent state taxes from wages.
The Statute of Limitations on Debt in South Dakota
South Dakota does not split its ordinary contract limitations period by written versus oral. SDCL 15-2-13 sets a single, undifferentiated 6-year period for any "contract, obligation, or liability, express or implied," which by its own terms covers written and oral debt alike, including credit cards, medical bills, and other unwritten consumer debt. There is no separate open-account subsection.

Promissory notes run on their own UCC-based clock under SDCL 57A-3-118: 6 years after the due date for notes payable at a definite time, or 6 years after demand for demand notes. Unaccepted drafts get 3 years after dishonor or 10 years after the date of the draft, whichever comes first; accepted drafts get 6 years after the stated due date.
Revival: SDCL 15-2-29 requires that an acknowledgment or a new promise sufficient to restart the limitations clock be "contained in some writing signed by the party to be charged." The same section separately states that it "shall not alter the effect of any payment of principal or interest," which carves payment out of the section's own writing requirement rather than spelling out exactly how a payment revives the debt. No dedicated South Dakota statute setting out the precise mechanics of part-payment revival was found; treat the practical effect of a partial payment on an old South Dakota debt as an open legal question rather than a settled rule, and be cautious before making one on a debt that may already be time-barred.
Two federal rules apply everywhere in South Dakota as well. Suing, or threatening to sue, on a time-barred debt violates Regulation F, 12 CFR 1006.26, no matter what the collector knew, and time-barred debt is not erased debt; the separate 7-year credit reporting clock runs on its own schedule. See our statute of limitations on debt guide for the full state-by-state table.
Car Repossession in South Dakota
South Dakota enacted the standard UCC self-help rule, SDCL 57A-9-609: after default, a secured party may take possession of the collateral, and may render equipment unusable and dispose of it on the debtor's premises, but only without a breach of the peace, a term the statute leaves to case law rather than defining. Every aspect of the disposition afterward, including method, manner, time, and place, must be commercially reasonable under SDCL 57A-9-610.
Deficiency accounting follows SDCL 57A-9-615's standard rule: proceeds first cover reasonable retaking and sale expenses, then the secured debt, with any surplus going to the debtor and any shortfall owed by the debtor as a deficiency, except for sales of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes, where there is no surplus or deficiency accounting at all. If the secured party or a related person buys the collateral itself at a price well below what an arm's-length sale would have brought, the deficiency is recalculated against what a compliant sale to an unrelated buyer would have realized.
South Dakota has no general statutory right to cure a default before an ordinary vehicle repossession. It does provide one specific carve-out for rent-to-own consumers: under SDCL 54-6A-7, a consumer whose rented property is repossessed for a missed payment can reinstate the agreement by paying the past-due rental charges, reasonable pickup and redelivery costs, and any applicable late fee. The reinstatement window is 5 days after the renewal date for monthly agreements, or 2 days for more-frequent-payment agreements, but that window stretches to at least 21 days after the property's return if less than two-thirds of the payments needed to acquire ownership had been made, and to at least 45 days if two-thirds or more had been paid. The lessor has to offer the same or comparable-quality substitute property upon reinstatement. See car repossession laws for the national framework, including the federal court-order requirement for servicemembers' pre-service loans.
If You Are Being Garnished or Sued in South Dakota
Answer the lawsuit. Doing so forces the plaintiff, often a debt buyer, to prove it owns the debt and that the amount is correct, and it preserves the 6-year limitations defense, which is lost if it is never raised. If a garnishment is already running, check the withholding against the 20 percent and 40-times-minimum-wage floors, and remember the lien only runs 120 days at a time, so it does not necessarily continue automatically past that window without a fresh summons. If judgments are piling up, bankruptcy's automatic stay halts garnishment while the case is open; see South Dakota bankruptcy law for how Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 work here. None of this is a prediction about any individual outcome; it is the process the law provides.
Information last verified on 2026-08-12. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Related Resources
- Debt Collection Laws by State
- Statute of Limitations on Debt
- How to Stop Wage Garnishment
- Car Repossession Laws
- Can Social Security Be Garnished?
- South Dakota Statute of Limitations
- South Dakota Bankruptcy
- South Dakota Child Support Laws
Last updated: 2026-08-12.
More South Dakota Laws
- South Dakota Final Paycheck Laws
- South Dakota Statute of Limitations
- South Dakota Unclaimed Property
Frequently Asked Questions
How much of my paycheck can be garnished in South Dakota?
Up to 20 percent of disposable earnings, but never enough to leave you with less than 40 times the greater of South Dakota's own minimum wage or the federal rate the statute freezes at its July 24, 2009 level ($7.25) per week, minus $25 for each dependent family member living with you, under SDCL 21-18-51.
How long does a South Dakota wage garnishment last?
A garnishee summons creates a continuing lien for up to 120 days under SDCL 21-18-14.1, ending sooner if the judgment is paid or the job ends.
Does South Dakota garnish wages for state income tax?
South Dakota has no state income tax. Other state tax debts are collected through a distress warrant process that authorizes seizure and sale of personal property, including bank accounts, rather than a payroll-withholding percentage.
What is the statute of limitations on debt in South Dakota?
Six years for both written and oral contracts under SDCL 15-2-13, which does not split the period by whether the agreement was in writing.
Can I be fired for a wage garnishment in South Dakota?
No South Dakota statute extending job protection beyond the federal one-garnishment rule was found. The federal rule, protecting against discharge for garnishment of a single debt, is the operative protection here.
Do I have a right to cure before my car is repossessed in South Dakota?
Not for ordinary vehicle financing; South Dakota has no general statutory cure period. Rent-to-own consumers get a separate statutory reinstatement right under SDCL 54-6A-7 after their property is repossessed.
Updates
Clarified that South Dakota's garnishment formula measures against the federal minimum wage as frozen at its July 24, 2009 level ($7.25) rather than any later federal rate, and corrected the support-withholding ceilings to South Dakota's own SDCL 21-18-52, which adopts the federal limits.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 21-18: GARNISHMENT OF DEBTS AND PROPERTY
§ 21-18-51Maximum amount subject to garnishment.In force
The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of a wage earner for any workweek which is subject to garnishment may not exceed the lesser of: (1) Twenty percent of disposable earnings for that week; (2) The amount by which disposable earnings for that week exceed forty times the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1) as amended and in effect on July 24, 2009, or applicable state minimum wage if greater, or any equivalent multiple thereof prescribed by regulation by the secretary of labor and regulation in case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, in effect at the time the earnings are payable less twenty-five dollars per week for each dependent family member residing with the garnishment debtor other than the garnishment debtor himself or herself. The restrictions of subdivisions (1) and (2) do not apply in the case of any order of any court for the support of any person or any order of any court of bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1992
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Accounts Management, Inc. v. Williams (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 484 N.W.2d 297)“…90 the maximum amount subject to garnishment was amended in SDCL 21-18-51. This amendment increased the amount of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 21-18-14.1Continuing lien on wages--Caption of garnishee summons--Disclosure forms.In force
The plaintiff may obtain a one hundred twenty-day continuing lien on wages by garnishment. If a lien is to be obtained, the plaintiff shall mark on the caption of the garnishee summons "continuing lien" and all disclosure forms shall include the following: Garnishee will continue to withhold the nonexempt portion of the defendant's earnings as they accrue through the last payroll period ending on or before one hundred twenty days from the effective date of the garnishee summons, or until the sum held equals the amount stated in the garnishee summons, or until the employment relationship terminates, whichever first occurs. At the time of the expected termination of the lien, the plaintiff shall mail to garnishee an additional copy of the disclosure form upon which the garnishee within ten days shall make further disclosure.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
§ 21-18-52Maximum garnishment allowed for support of any person.In force
The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any work week which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person may not exceed: (1) If the individual is supporting a spouse or dependent child other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support the order is used, fifty percent of the individual's disposable earnings for that week; and (2) If the individual is not supporting a spouse or dependent child other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support the order is used, sixty percent of the individual's disposable earnings for that week; except that with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the fifty percent specified in subdivision (1) shall be deemed to be fifty-five percent and the sixty percent specified in subdivision (2) shall be deemed to be sixty-five percent, if and to the extent that the earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve week period which ends with the beginning of the workweek. No court of this state may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1995
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jasper v. Smith (South Dakota Supreme Court 1995, 540 N.W.2d 399)“…7-4 (failure to support spouse is chargeable as a felony); SDCL 21-18-52 (maximum garnishment allowed for suppor…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 15-2: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS GENERALLY
§ 15-2-13Contract obligation or liability--Statutory liability--Trespass--Personal property--Injury to noncontract rights--Fraud--Setting aside corporate instrument.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
Except where, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute, the following civil actions other than for the recovery of real property can be commenced only within six years after the cause of action shall have accrued: (1) An action upon a contract, obligation, or liability, express or implied, excepting those mentioned in §§ 15-2-6 to 15-2-8, inclusive, and subdivisions 15-2-15(3) and (4); (2) An action upon a liability created by statute other than a penalty or forfeiture; excepting those mentioned in subdivisions 15-2-15(3) and (4); (3) An action for trespass upon real property; (4) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring any goods or chattels, including actions for specific recovery of personal property; (5) An action for criminal conversation or for any other injury to the rights of another not arising on contract and not otherwise specifically enumerated in §§ 15-2-6 to 15-2-17, inclusive; (6) An action for relief on the ground of fraud, in cases which heretofore were solely cognizable by the court of chancery; (7) An action to set aside any instrument executed in the name of a corporation on the ground that the corporate charter had expired…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 98 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Morgan v. Baldwin (South Dakota Supreme Court 1990, 450 N.W.2d 783)“…an the six year limitation prescribed for contract actions, SDCL 15-2-13(1), and granted Baldwin summary…”
- Strassburg v. Citizens State Bank (South Dakota Supreme Court 1998, 581 N.W.2d 510)“…e Bank’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that under SDCL 15-2-13 the six year statute of limitations beg…”
- Green v. Siegel, Barnett & Schutz (South Dakota Supreme Court 1996, 557 N.W.2d 396)“…appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that SDCL 15-2-13 and 15-2-14.2, providing the statutes o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, South Dakota Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, South Dakota Scam and Fraud Laws: Where to Report, Right to Sue (2026)
§ 15-2-29Writing required for acknowledgment or promise to take case out of operation of chapter.In force
No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract, whereby to take the case out of the operation of this chapter, unless the same be contained in some writing signed by the party to be charged thereby; but this section shall not alter the effect of any payment of principal or interest.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mealy v. Prins (South Dakota Supreme Court 2019, 2019 S.D. 57)“…8- #28588, #28597 [¶20.] SDCL 15-2-29 permits revival of a time-barred contra…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 57A-9: SECURED TRANSACTIONS
§ 57A-9-609Secured party's rights with respect to collateral following default.In force
(a) After default, a secured party: (1) May take possession of the collateral; and (2) Without removal, may render equipment unusable and dispose of collateral on a debtor's premises under § 57A-9-610. (b) A secured party may proceed under subsection (a): (1) Pursuant to judicial process; or (2) Without judicial process, if it proceeds without breach of the peace. (c) If so agreed, and in any event after default, a secured party may require the debtor to assemble the collateral and make it available to the secured party at a place to be designated by the secured party which is reasonably convenient to both parties.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
§ 57A-9-610Disposition of collateral after default--Treatment of warranties.In force
(a) After default, a secured party may sell, lease, license, or otherwise dispose of any or all of the collateral in its present condition or following any commercially reasonable preparation or processing . (b) Every aspect of a disposition of collateral, including the method, manner, time, place, and other terms, must be commercially reasonable. If commercially reasonable, a secured party may dispose of collateral by public or private proceedings, by one or more contracts, as a unit or in parcels, and at any time and place and on any terms. (c) A secured party may purchase collateral: (1) At a public disposition; or (2) At a private disposition only if the collateral is of a kind that is customarily sold on a recognized market or the subject of widely distributed standard price quotations. (d) A contract for sale, lease, license, or other disposition includes the warranties relating to title, possession, quiet enjoyment, and the like which by operation of law accompany a voluntary disposition of property of the kind subject to the contract.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
§ 57A-9-615Application of proceeds of disposition--Liability for deficiency and right to surplus.In force
(a) A secured party shall apply or pay over for application the cash proceeds of disposition under § 57A-9-610 in the following order to: (1) The reasonable expenses of retaking, holding, preparing for disposition, processing, and disposing, and, to the extent provided for by agreement and not prohibited by law, reasonable attorney's fees and legal expenses incurred by the secured party; (2) The satisfaction of obligations secured by the security interest or agricultural lien under which the disposition is made; (3) The satisfaction of obligations secured by any subordinate security interest in or other subordinate lien on the collateral if: (A) The secured party receives from the holder of the subordinate security interest or other lien a signed demand for proceeds before distribution of the proceeds is completed; and (B) In a case in which a consignor has an interest in the collateral, the subordinate security interest or other lien is senior to the interest of the consignor; and (4) A secured party that is a consignor of the collateral if the secured party receives from the consignor a signed demand for proceeds before distribution of the proceeds is completed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 10-59: UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN STATE TAXES
§ 10-59-13Issuance of distress warrant--Collection and remittance of tax--Compensation for sheriff--Accounts subject to seizure.In force
After a notice of lien has been filed as provided in § 10-59-11, the secretary may at any time require the county treasurer to issue a distress warrant in the manner provided in chapter 10-56. Immediately upon receipt of the warrant the sheriff shall proceed to collect the tax, penalty, or interest due by seizure and sale of personal property as provided in chapter 10-56. The sheriff shall remit the amount collected to the county treasurer who shall remit the money to the Department of Revenue. For such service the sheriff may collect from the taxpayer and retain the compensation provided in chapter 10-56, but the sheriff's compensation may not be deducted from any taxes, penalty or interest collected. Checking, savings and similar accounts are personal property and are subject to seizure by the sheriff for the purpose of satisfying the distress warrant.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 54-6A: LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY
§ 54-6A-7Reinstatement of agreement--Repossession.In force
A consumer who fails to make a timely rental payment may reinstate the agreement, without losing any rights or options which exist under the agreement, by the payment of: (1) All past due rental charges; (2) If the property has been picked up, the reasonable costs of pickup and redelivery; and (3) Any applicable late fee, within five days of the renewal date if the consumer pays monthly, or within two days of the renewal date if the consumer pays more frequently than monthly. In the case of a consumer who has paid less than two-thirds of the total of payments necessary to acquire ownership and if the consumer has returned or voluntarily surrendered the property, other than through judicial process, during the applicable reinstatement period set forth in this section, the consumer may reinstate the agreement during a period of not less than twenty-one days after the date of the return of the property.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Code of Federal Regulations Title 12
§ 1006.26Collection of time-barred debts.In forcecited in 37 of our articles
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section: (1) Statute of limitations means the period prescribed by applicable law for bringing a legal action against the consumer to collect a debt. (2) Time-barred debt means a debt for which the applicable statute of limitations has expired. (b) Legal actions and threats of legal actions prohibited. A debt collector must not bring or threaten to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt. This paragraph (b) does not apply to proofs of claim filed in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hanover v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (2024) dismissed FDCPA claims built on 12 CFR 1006.26(b), reasoning it bars only collection of time-barred debts and the loans at issue were not time barred. Raja v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (2025) dismissed a Regulation F claim because nonjudicial foreclosure is not covered by the FDCPA.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hanover v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2024)✓A borrower claimed a servicer's letter and billing statement lacked language required by 12 CFR 1006.26(b); the court granted the servicer summary judgment, since the rule only bars collecting time-barred debts and it had already found her HELOC and mortgage enforceable.
- Raja v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2025)✓Pro se homeowners alleged a servicer and foreclosure attorneys pursued a time-barred, discharged second mortgage in violation of 12 CFR 1006.26(b); the court dismissed that claim, holding parties carrying out a nonjudicial foreclosure are not FDCPA debt collectors.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Debt Collection Laws by State: Garnishment, SOL, and Repossession Rules, Alabama Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession, Alaska Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 43-45: PERSONAL PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM PROCESS
§ 43-45-4Additional property exemptions--Selection and appraisal.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
In addition to the property provided for in §§ 43-45-2 and 43-45-3, the debtor, if the head of a family, may, personally, or by agent or attorney, select from all other of the debtor's personal property, not absolutely exempt, goods, chattels, merchandise, money, or other personal property not to exceed in the aggregate seven thousand dollars in value; and, if not the head of a family, property as aforesaid of the value of five thousand dollars, which is also exempt, and which shall be chosen and appraised as provided by law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1992
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Accounts Management, Inc. v. Williams (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 484 N.W.2d 297)“…Sess. Law, ch. 361), thereby amending an earlier version of SDCL 43-45-4. This amendment provided: In add…”
- In Re Wood (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Dakota 1981, 8 B.R. 882)“…ing property: (1) household goods valued at $430.00 (SDCL 43-45-4); (2) books and pictures valued…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Bankruptcy in South Dakota (2026): Exemptions & Means Test
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 57A-3: NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
§ 57A-3-118Statute of limitations.In force
(a) Except as provided in subsection (e), an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time must be commenced within six years after the due date or dates stated in the note or, if a due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated due date. (b) Except as provided in subsection (d) or (e), if demand for payment is made to the maker of a note payable on demand, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the note must be commenced within six years after the demand. If no demand for payment is made to the maker, an action to enforce the note is barred if neither principal nor interest on the note has been paid for a continuous period of ten years. (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), an action to enforce the obligation of a party to an unaccepted draft to pay the draft must be commenced within three years after dishonor of the draft or ten years after the date of the draft, whichever period expires first.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- First Dakota National Bank v. Maxon (South Dakota Supreme Court 1995, 534 N.W.2d 37)“…guage encompassed more than one renewal or extension. Cf. SDCL 57A-3-118(f). Maxon and Parker were obviously n…”
- Mealy v. Prins (South Dakota Supreme Court 2019, 2019 S.D. 57)“…7- #28588, #28597 SDCL 57A-3-118(a). Demand notes, in contrast, fall und…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 15
§ 1673Restriction on garnishmentIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (b) and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206(a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable, whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2). The restrictions of subsection (a) do not apply in the case of any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review. any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11. any debt due for any State or Federal tax.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 450 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have read the section 1673 garnishment cap narrowly. Kokoszka v. Belford (1974) held that "disposable earnings" reaches periodic compensation and not an income tax refund, so the cap did not keep a refund out of the bankruptcy estate. Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank (2015) held section 1673 creates no private right of action.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 439 U.S. 572)“…and amended § 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1673 (b), to pre-empt state law by limiting…”
- Kokoszka v. Belford (Supreme Court of the United States 1974, 417 U.S. 642)✓A bankrupt argued the 25 percent garnishment cap exempted 75 percent of his $250.90 income tax refund from the trustee; the Supreme Court held Section 1673's limit covers periodic compensation, not a tax refund, so the whole refund passed to the estate.
- Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank (District Court, S.D. New York 2015, 91 F. Supp. 3d 491)✓After a Florida garnishment froze a disabled borrower's bank account holding disability benefits, she sued under Section 1673; the court held the section creates no private right of action and is enforced by the Secretary of Labor, and dismissed the claim.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Bankruptcy in Alabama (2026): Exemptions & Means Test, Bankruptcy in Georgia (2026): Exemptions & Means Test, Arkansas Debt Collection Laws: Wage Garnishment, Statute of Limitations, and Repossession
United States Code Title 29
§ 206Minimum wageIn forcecited in 49 of our articles
Every employer shall pay to each of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, wages at the following rates: except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than— $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after May 25, 2007; $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day; if such employee is a home worker in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, not less than the minimum piece rate prescribed by regulation or order; or, if no such minimum piece rate is in effect, any piece rate adopted by such employer which shall yield, to the proportion or class of employees prescribed by regulation or order, not less than the applicable minimum hourly wage rate. Such minimum piece rates or employer piece rates shall be commensurate with, and shall be paid in lieu of, the minimum hourly wage rate applicable under the provisions of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 6,250 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mark D. Tourscher v. Martin Horn, Secretary of the Pa. Dept. Of Corrections John McCullough Superintendent ,(d.c. Civil No. 98-Cv-00176j) (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1999, 184 F.3d 236)“…wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a), for the work he was compelled to d…”
- Christensen v. Harris County (Supreme Court of the United States 2000, 529 U.S. 576)“…in the private sector of the economy or the public sector. 29 U. S. C. §§ 206 , 207 (1994 ed. and Supp. III). In 1985…”
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1981, 450 U.S. 728)“…a minimum wage under § 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U. S. C. § 206 , may not be waived through a collectiv…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Debt Collection Laws: Garnishment Formula, the 6-Year Consumer Debt Rule, and Repossession, Wage Theft in the U.S.: Your Rights Regardless of Immigration Status, Minimum Wage by State (2027): All 50 States and DC
Sources and References
- SDCL 21-18-51, Maximum Garnishment of Disposable Earnings(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 21-18-14.1, Continuing Lien on Wages by Garnishment(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 10-59-13, Distress Warrant; Seizure and Sale of Personal Property(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 15-2-13, Six-Year Limitation on Contract Actions(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 15-2-29, Acknowledgment or Promise Must Be in Writing(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 57A-9-609, Secured Party Right to Take Possession After Default(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 54-6A-7, Reinstatement of Rental-Purchase Agreement(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 21-18-52, Maximum Garnishment to Enforce a Support Order(sdlegislature.gov)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.