
On November 8th, Arizona voters approved Proposition 209, which significantly modifies the rights of creditors. Although the pre-election publicity focused mostly on medical debt, Prop. 209 changes how all types of debt can be collected against individuals. The initiative is expected to take effect in January, 2023.
Before passage of Prop. 209, interest rates for medical debt were treated the same as other debts under A.R.S. § 44-1201. The statute set the maximum rate at 10% per year, but provided that any other interest rate could be agreed to.
Expected January, 2023, the interest rate for medical debt will be capped at 3% per year, or the weekly average one-year constant maturity treasury yield—whichever is less. Importantly, the maximum allowable interest rates for other types of debt will not change.
Prop. 209 also significantly modifies Arizona’s property exemptions. Property exemptions are set by statute and protect certain types of property, up to certain dollar amounts, from unsecured creditors’ collection efforts. The property exemptions are also used in bankruptcy cases to protect certain assets (in certain amounts) from being used to pay creditors. Prop. 209 makes the following changes to Arizona’s property exemptions:
Property | Current Exemption | Exemption Beginning Jan. 1, 2023 |
Homestead exemption | $250,000 | $400,000 |
Household goods, furnishings, and electronic devices | $6,000 | $15,000 |
Equity in motor vehicle | $6,000 | $15,000 |
Equity in motor vehicle if debtor or debtor’s dependent has a physical disability | $12,000 | $25,000 |
Money held in a personal bank account | $300 | $5,000 |
These exemption amounts will be adjusted annually to account for cost-of-living increases. On January 1 of each year beginning in 2024, each exemption amount will be recalculated by measuring the percentage increase of the consumer price index from the previous year.
Finally, Prop. 209 limits the amount of a person’s wages that can be subject to debt collection by any creditor. Under current law, up to 25% of a person’s disposable wages is subject to garnishment by creditors (or 30 times the federal minimum wage, whichever is less). In the case of an order for the support of a person (e.g., child support), half of the debtor’s disposable earnings may be garnished. After Prop. 209 takes effect, only 10% of disposable wages will be subject to garnishment (or 60 times the highest applicable minimum wage, whichever is less). Prop. 209 does not affect garnishments pursuant to orders for the support of a person.
Prop. 209 makes changes to Arizona law that affect all creditors, not only holders of medical debt. It is important for creditors to understand these changes when executing a judgment or deciding whether to bring a lawsuit against an individual.
For more information about Prop. 209 or creditors’ rights, please contact Nick Bauman at nbauman@lewisroca.com or Andrew Jacobsohn at ajacobsohn@lewisroca.com.
Tags: Arizona Government Relations, Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights- Partner
Nick Bauman is a trial court litigator whose practice focuses on commercial litigation, including partnership disputes, real estate litigation, contract disputes, business torts, and bankruptcy proceedings. Nick has experience in a variety of industries, including real estate ...
- Associate
Andrew is an associate in the firm's Litigation Practice Group. Prior to joining the firm, he interned at a leading computer software company, and was a summer associate at the firm.
Andrew received his J.D. from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. While ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Oliver S. Bajracharya
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Brent R. Cohen
- Howard E. Cole
- Lance T. Collins
- Ross L. Crown
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Katie M. Derrig
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Jessica L. Fuller
- Salma G. Granich
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- Marla J. Hudgens
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Aaron D. Johnson
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- William D. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- James Voyles
- Hilary D. Wells
- Allison Whitehill
- Drew Wilson
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The IP of Everything Podcast - Episode 18 - The IP of AI
- Escrow Agent Found 100% Liable for Wire Transfer to Cybercriminal/Imposter
- GAO Sustains Protest Where Awardee's Proposal Allegedly Misrepresented Availability of Key Person
- NCUA Approves 72-Hour Breach Notification Rule
- Welcome our 2023 Diversity Legal Writing Interns
- Review of 2022 Arizona Tax Highlights
- California AG Announces CCPA Investigative Sweep
- The IP of Everything Podcast - Episode 17 - The IP of the USPTO
- GAO Determines Navy Improperly Evaluated Technical Proposal
- The IP of Everything Podcast - Episode 16 - The IP of the Metaverse