Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, certain decisions under former Civil Code 1910, § 5269, former Code 1933, §§ 46-105 and 46-301, as they read prior to revision of Title 46 by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1, and former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-62 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Relationship with federal law.

- After a consumer appealed a district court's dismissal of the consumer's improper venue Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., complaint, the FDCPA venue provision applied only to legal actions against any consumer, and Georgia garnishment proceedings were not legal actions against any consumer. Ray v. McCullough Payne & Haan, LLC, 838 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2016).

Purpose of summons of garnishment.

- Summons of garnishment is the process that brings the garnishee into court, and in this respect is like process in an ordinary suit, its purpose being to give notice to the garnishee of the plaintiff's claim upon the defendant's property in the garnishee's possession or upon the garnishee's indebtedness to the defendant. Gowen v. Bell, 113 Ga. App. 324, 148 S.E.2d 52 (1966) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-105, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1).

Substantial compliance with requirements.

- Substantial compliance with the requisites of the Code, with respect to issuing and serving of process, will be sufficient, and, when notice is given, no technical or formal objection shall invalidate any process. Gainesville Feed & Poultry Co. v. Waters, 87 Ga. App. 354, 73 S.E.2d 771 (1952) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-105, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1).

Premature answer in garnishment is amendable.

- Answer in garnishment prematurely filed exists, after time for proper filing arrives, in an imperfect form, and is therefore amendable as are pleadings generally. Mark Ten Homes Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank, 115 Ga. App. 597, 155 S.E.2d 455 (1967) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-301, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1).

Personal service necessary.

- Former Civil Code 1910, § 5269 required that when summons of garnishment is issued, officer shall serve the summons upon person of garnishee, which means that the summons shall be served upon the garnishee personally. Robinson v. T.A. Bryson & Sons, 45 Ga. App. 440, 165 S.E. 158 (1932) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5269).

Personal service defined.

- Personal service means actual delivery of process to the defendant in person, and does not include leaving a copy at the defendant's usual place of abode, or the defendant's home, or at the defendant's office, or by delivery to someone else. Robinson v. T.A. Bryson & Sons, 45 Ga. App. 440, 165 S.E. 158 (1932) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5269).

Availability of personal service provisions of

§ 9-11-4(d). - Provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(d) concerning personal service of process are available in a garnishment case. Alpha Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Cartwright, 248 Ga. 701, 285 S.E.2d 713 (1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-62).

Former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-62 did not expressly state that personal service provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(d) are unavailable, and further, § 9-11-4(j) provides that "service shall be sufficient when made in accordance with the statutes relating particularly to the proceeding or in accordance with this Code section. " Alpha Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Cartwright, 248 Ga. 701, 285 S.E.2d 713 (1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-62).

Service on nonresident garnishee's agent and answer by garnishee.

- When attachment process is sued out against nonresident and summons of garnishment was served on agent of garnishee, and when garnishee filed answer admitting funds, garnishee cannot legally defend against subsequent action on attachment bond on ground that the garnishee was not personally served as required. Carrington v. Wilharbla Realty Co., 67 Ga. App. 898, 20 S.E.2d 860 (1942) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-105, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1).

Return of service conclusive as to identity of person to whom summons was directed.

- When it is not contended that it was irregular or incomplete in any way, return of service is conclusive as to identity of person to whom summons of garnishment was directed. Gainesville Feed & Poultry Co. v. Waters, 87 Ga. App. 354, 73 S.E.2d 771 (1952) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-105, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1).

Amendability of return of service.

- Return of service not amendable to show that person named in it was garnishee served. Gibbs v. Rhodes Furn. Co., 58 Ga. App. 352, 198 S.E. 315 (1938) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-105, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1).

Motion to quash filed after time for answering has expired.

- When time provided by law for answering summons of garnishment has expired when garnishee files the garnishee's motion to quash, the trial court errs if the court grants the motion. Gowen v. Bell, 113 Ga. App. 324, 148 S.E.2d 52 (1966) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-105, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1).

Garnishment by judgment creditor against defendant's insurer.

- After the parents of a shooting victim obtained judgment against the owner of the property on which their son was shot, and the owner filed bankruptcy, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and holding that the judgment debtor had no garnishment action against the owner's insurer; the insurer could contest, under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-62, the assertion that it held property belonging to the owner, namely the benefits to be paid on the owner's behalf under an insurance contract. Ross v. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd., 279 Ga. 92, 610 S.E.2d 57 (2005) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-62).

When claim for default arises.

- Claim arises against the garnishee at the time the garnishee falls into default by failing to file answers in a continuing garnishment proceeding, and is separate and distinct from any claim which may have existed prior to that time. Fazio v. Growth Dev. Corp., 168 Bankr. 1009 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90).

Garnishee failed to amend the defective answer as permitted by law and, pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90, the garnishee was automatically in default. Because the garnishee failed to establish the presence of a nonamendable defect on the face of the record or pleadings, the court abused the court's discretion by granting the motion to set aside the default judgment. Oxmoor Portfolio, LLC v. Flooring & Tile Superstore of Conyers, Inc., 320 Ga. App. 640, 740 S.E.2d 363 (2013) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90).

Cited in Blach v. Diaz-Verson, 303 Ga. 63, 810 S.E.2d 129 (2018).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 339 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 38 C.J.S., Garnishment, §§ 174, 185, 186, 188 et seq., 262 et seq.

ALR.

- Money due only on further performance of contract by debtor as subject to garnishment, 2 A.L.R. 506.

Waiver or admission by garnishee as affecting principal defendant, 64 A.L.R. 430.

Who may serve writ, summons, or notice of garnishment, 75 A.L.R.2d 1433.

Sufficiency, as to content, of notice of garnishment required to be served upon garnishee, 20 A.L.R.5th 229.