Ark. Code Ann. § 16-110-402 (2020)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey — Debtor-Creditor, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 573.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Constitutionality of a writ of garnishment is not something which an employer-garnishee must determine before complying with its terms. Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1988).

In General.

Strict compliance with garnishment statutes and judicial process is essential to the validity of garnishment proceedings. Hervey v. Farms, Inc., 252 Ark. 881, 481 S.W.2d 348 (1972).

Beneficiary had a right of $750 per month from the insurance company as long as he may live, and the insurance company had a contractual obligation to pay the beneficiary the sum each month, but there was no debt presently due or certain to come due until the day of payment arrived and the beneficiary was alive. Thompson v. Bank of Am., 356 Ark. 576, 157 S.W.3d 174 (2004).

Attachment of Liens.

The debt is bound in the hands of the garnishee from the time of the service of the writ, and the right of a garnishor to a satisfaction of his judgment out of the debt cannot be defeated by a subsequent payment of the garnishee, whether made voluntarily or by legal coercion. Desha v. Baker, 3 Ark. 509 (1841); Watkins v. Field, 6 Ark. 391 (1846); Martin v. Foreman, 18 Ark. 249 (1856).

The lien of a garnishment dates from the time the garnishment writ is served upon the garnishee, and a sale and transfer by the defendant of his choses in action, not subject to execution, before such service will be good. The burden of proof that a purchase of debts made on the same day of the service of a garnishment was before the service is upon the purchaser. Bergman v. Sells & Co., 39 Ark. 97 (1882).

Foreign Judgments.

Foreign child-support judgments and accompanying writs of garnishment are recognized and enforced by Arkansas courts under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, § 16-66-601 et seq., and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, § 9-14-301 et seq. (repealed, see now § 9-17-101 et seq.). Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1988).

Judgment debtor failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted where he sought judgment in the amount of wages withheld by his employer pursuant to a writ of garnishment entered in a state court and enforced under the Arkansas Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, § 9-14-301 et seq. (repealed, see now § 9-17-101 et seq.), alleging that the writ was facially invalid, that he did not receive notice of his rights, and that his employer knew that this fact rendered the garnishment invalid. Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1988).

Invalid Service.

Where a writ of garnishment was issued on a bank and the sheriff contended that he served it on a vice-president of the bank but no notation was made on the return that the bank president was not available, the service was invalid. First Nat'l Bank v. H & M Lumber Co., 252 Ark. 175, 477 S.W.2d 850 (1972).

Joinder of Garnishees.

A writ of garnishment may be against several garnishees where the writ, allegations, and interrogatories show a joint indebtedness and a joint possession of goods. Moreland v. Pelham, 7 Ark. 338 (1847).

It is error to join several garnishees in the same writ of garnishment without allegations of joint liability or indebtedness. Cincinnati & Little Rock Slate Co. v. Bridge & Co., 17 Ark. 364 (1856).

Liability.

An employer presented with a court order and writ of garnishment is required to comply with that order and garnish its employee's wages; failure to garnish may render the employer-garnishee liable to the judgment creditor. Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1988).

Notice.

This section places the responsibility upon the judgment creditor, not the garnishee, to insure that the judgment debtor receives notice of his rights as required by Davis v. Paschall, 640 F. Supp. 198 (E.D. Ark. 1986). Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1988).

Notice to judgment debtor, to be constitutional, need not supply the judgment debtor with a “laundry list” of statutory or constitutional exemptions or inform him of all available exemptions. Such notice need only inform the debtor that postjudgment execution is being levied and that state and federal exemptions may be available with respect to the property subject to the levy. Duhon v. Gravett, 302 Ark. 358, 790 S.W.2d 155 (1990).

Circuit court erred in denying a garnishee's motion for relief from an order to pay in a garnishment proceeding; the garnishee's constitutional right to due process was not met because the garnishee did not receive notice of the hearing, and there was neither an attempt to alert the garnishee of the hearing nor an actual awareness of it on the garnishee's part. Cardinal Health v. Beth's Bail Bonds, Inc., 2017 Ark. 54, 511 S.W.3d 327 (2017).

Statutory scheme for garnishment proceedings sets some procedural rules, but the general rules of civil procedure fill in the gaps. Thus, the relevant consideration is Ark. R. Civ. P. 5, which sets out requirements for service of pleadings and papers filed after the complaint. Cardinal Health v. Beth's Bail Bonds, Inc., 2017 Ark. 54, 511 S.W.3d 327 (2017).

Cited: DeSoto, Inc. v. Crow, 257 Ark. 882, 520 S.W.2d 307 (1975); Kennedy v. Kelly, 295 Ark. 678, 751 S.W.2d 6 (1988); McCrory v. Johnson, 296 Ark. 231, 755 S.W.2d 566 (1988); Stephens v. Walker, 743 F. Supp. 670 (W.D. Ark. 1990); May v. Bob Hankins Distrib. Co., 301 Ark. 494, 785 S.W.2d 23 (1990); Brimer v. State, 301 Ark. 540, 785 S.W.2d 458 (1990); Turner v. Farnam, 82 Ark. App. 489, 120 S.W.3d 616 (2003).