Although each of these interests is a constitutionally protected property right and thus meets the first element of the claim, the Owners fail to satisfy the second element because the Town never deprived them of these interests. First, although money is clearly a cognizable property interest, see, e.g., Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571-72, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (including money in the list of quintessential property rights protected by the Constitution), the Town never deprived the Owners of any money because the Owners never actually paid the fine. The Town’s imposition of fines is not the equivalent of actually taking the Owners’ money. Cf. Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 340-42, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969) (<HOLDING>). The Owners thus have suffered no deprivation,
holding that garnishment is a distinct civil action holding that a plaintiff cannot assert a statutory claim for wages under the labor law if he has no enforceable contractual right to those wages holding that garnishment of wages is a deprivation holding that a garnishment proceeding is an action against the consumer holding under indiana law that profits are not wages and neither is a fraction of profits wages and so a bonus that is based on the performance of a plant rather than on the time or determinable output of the employee is not wages either