BAY MITCHELL, Presiding Judge.
T1 Garnishee/Appellant MeNellies, LLC (MecNellies) seeks review of the trial courts order in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. successor in interest to Capital One Bank (Capital One), holding that Defendant Jennifer Sullivans (Sullivan) credit card tips are earnings subject to garnishment. Because the trial court erred as a matter of law, we reverse and remand.
12 Sullivan is employed as a server and bartender at MecNellies. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. § 203(m), MecNellies takes a tip credit and pays servers a special minimum wage of only $2.13 per hour. Sullivans biweekly paychecks are typically less than $50.00. As is customary for wait staff, Sullivan also receives tips from customers, in cash and by credit card. McNellies allows employees to keep all cash tips and remits to employees at the end of each shift the tips that were paid via credit card.
T8 Capital One obtained a judgment against Sullivan in the amount of $2,268.93. In an effort to collect on the judgment, Capital One filed a Continuing Earnings Garnishment Affidavit and Summons seeking to garnish Sullivans earnings from MeNellies. For several months, McNellies filed bi-weekly answers to the garnishment, each time indicating Sullivan had no earnings subject to garnishment.
T4 In February 2018, MecNellies sought relief from the burden of filing an answer to the garnishment every two weeks, claiming that Sullivans earnings would always be too low to be eligible for garnishment due to her special hourly wage. MeNellies noted that, although no published appellate opinion in Oklahoma addresses the issue of whether credit card tips are earnings subject to garnishment, credit card tips are not considered earnings under the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) (15 U.S.C.A. § 1671 et seq.) and argued that the CCPA preempts state law where it is more restrictive. After a hearing, the trial court held that the credit card tips are earnings subject to garnishment and ordered MeNellies to recalculate Sullivans earnings from its receipt of the garnishment summons forward. MeNellies appeals.
15 Ordinarily, (iln a garnishment proceeding, there is a presumption in favor of the trial courts finding and the judgment will be affirmed unless the findings are clearly against the weight of the evidence. Spears v. Preble, 1988 OK 8, ¶ 21, 661 P.2d 1837, 1342 (footnote omitted). However, the courts legal rulings in a garnishment proceeding are reviewable de movo, independent of and without deference to the trial court. ONeill v. Long, 2002 OK 68, ¶ 9, 54 P.3d 109, 112. Statutory construction likewise presents a question of law we review de novo. See Murray County v. Homesales, Inc., 2014 OK 52, ¶ 5, 330 P.3d 519, 523.
T6 Both this state and the federal government have enacted statutes restricting garnishment of wages. See 12 0.8. § 1170, et seq.; 14A O.8. § 5-101, et seq.; and 15 U.S.C.A. § 1671, et seq. When the two conflict, the law which is more restrictive and results in the smaller garnishment is controlling. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1677; Willhite v. Willhite, 1976 OK 17, ¶ 17, 546 P.2d 612, 616. Under Oklahoma law, earnings means any form of payment to an individual including, but not limited to, salary, wages, commission, or other compensation[.] 12 O.S8.2011 § 1178 The CCPA similarly defines earnings as compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1672(a).
T7 No published appellate opinion in this state addresses whether credit card tips are considered earnings under $ 1178.4(A) or the CCPA. Federal law, however, is more instructive on this issue. Enforcement of the CCPA has been assigned to the United States Department of Labor (DOL). See 15 U.8.C.A. § 1676. The DOLs Field Operations Handbook (DOL Handbook), dated February 9, 2001, provides in Chapter 16, Section 16207:
(a) Bona fide tips are not subject to the provisions of the CCPA. A garnishment is inherently a procedural device designed to reach and sequester earnings held by the garnishee (usually the employer). Tips paid directly to an employee by a customer are not earnings within the meaning of [15 U.S.C.A. § 1672] of the CCPA, since they do not pass to the employer. This includes gratuities transferred free and clear to an employee at the direction of credit customers who add tips to the bill.
(b) Service charges added to a customers bill constitute earnings within the meaning of [15 U.S.C.A. § 1672] when passed on to the employee. As such, they are subject to the provisions of the CCPA. The following examples demonstrate the point.
(1) A restaurant charges a customer 15% of the check, as a service charge, and in turn pays this amount to the server (debtor). Since this is an automatic charge, there is no gratuity by the customer. The compensation passed from the employer (garnishee) to the server.
(2) The employment agreement is such that the customers tips belong to the employer and must be eredited or turned over to the employer.
(available at http://www.dol.gov/whd/FOH/ FOH_Ch16.pdf) (emphasis added).
18 Although the DOL Handbook does not enjoy the force of law, [s]tatutory construction by agencies charged with the laws enforcement is given persuasive effect[.] Walker v. Group Health, 2001 OK 2, ¶ 29, 37 P.3d 749, 760. At least two other courts have given the DOLs interpretation respectful consideration and deference. See Big M, Inc. v. Texas Roadhouse Holding, LLC, 415 N.J.Super. 130, 136, 1 Ad 718, 722 (N.J.Super.A.D.2010); see also Erlanger Med. Ctr. v. Strong, 382 S.W.3d 349, 353 (Tenn.Ct.App.2012).
T9 Capital One acknowledges the DOL Handbook but does not address the deference we must accord to its interpretation. Instead, Capital One argues that McNellies mere processing of the credit card tips is an exercise of control sufficient to qualify those tips as earnings subject to garnishment. However, Capital Ones position is in direct opposition to the DOL Handbook, and the authority cited by Capital One is not persuasive.
1 10 We give the DOLs interpretation deference and find the cases adopting its analysis to be persuasive. We hold that credit card tips paid directly by the employer to an employee at the end of a work shift are insulated from garnishment. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for any further proceedings necessitated hereby.
11 REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HETHERINGTON, C.J., and JOPLIN, J., concur.
. Under both federal and state law, the maximum amount of an individuals disposable earnings subject to garnishment may not exceed (a) 25% of his disposable earnings for the week; or (b) the amount by which his weekly disposable earnings exceed $217.50 (30 times the federal minimum wage of $7.25), whichever is less. See 14A O.S. § 5-105(2) and 15 U.S.C.A. § 1673(a).
. Shanks v. Lowe, 364 Md. 538, 774 A.2d 411 (Md.2001), released shortly after the February 2001 version of the DOL Handbook, does not discuss the CCPA at all. Myers v. Copper Cellar Corp., 192 F.3d 546 (6th Cir.1999), addresses whether an employer may deduct a fixed percentage from employees credit card tips to recover the processing fee charged by the credit card company and is not pertinent to the issue in this case.