O.C.G.A. § 18-4-17 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-95 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Traverse properly granted. - Trial court did not err in granting a sole proprietorship’s traverse, in which it sought to become a party in a golf supplier’s garnishment action and asserted a verified claim to the funds at issue, because there was some evidence to support the findings that the sole proprietorship was a separate and distinct entity from the corporation and that the garnishee assented to the modification of a contract to replace the corporation with the sole proprietorship as contractor; the sole proprietorship had its own tax identification number and liability insurance, and a representative of the garnishee testified that the garnishee was aware that someone had changed the contractor’s name and that the garnishee had no business dealings with the corporation. A. M. Buckler & Assocs. v. Sanders, 305 Ga. App. 704, 700 S.E.2d 701, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 805 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-95). Party asserting superior claim must traverse garnishee’s answer. - Defendant who has elected to become a party to the garnishment proceedings and who has a claim superior to that of the plaintiff to money or property in the hands of the garnishee is authorized to, and indeed must, assert such a claim and then traverse the answer of the garnishee. Terrell v. Fuller, 160 Ga. App. 56, 286 S.E.2d 50, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2875 (1981) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-495).

Brokerage service account owner’s assignee’s claims against the service that it had unlawfully allowed disbursement of the funds in the account, pursuant to a garnishment judgment, after the owner had sought to close the account, were barred by res judicata under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40 after it was noted that the owner had filed a traverse in the garnishment proceeding and, accordingly, the owner could have raised the same issues at that time, pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-93. The owner, as the debtor in the garnishment proceeding, was required to assert any claim that the owner’s right to the funds was superior to that of the judgment creditor pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-95. Lamb v. First Union Brokerage Servs., 263 Ga. App. 733, 589 S.E.2d 300, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 1311 (2003), cert. denied, No. S04C0416, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 157 (Ga. Feb. 16, 2004) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-95). Judgment holder properly denied disbursement of disputed funds. - In a garnishment proceeding, a trial court properly declined to disburse certain bank funds to the judgment holder since a claimant timely filed a claim to the funds, established sole ownership to the funds, and complied with the necessary procedural requirements to become a party to the action. Further, since a dispute existed about whether the funds were properly subject to garnishment and the trial court had not yet distributed the funds to the judgment holder, the trial court did not err by resolving the dispute rather than allowing an expedited distribution. Akridge v. Silva, 298 Ga. App. 862, 681 S.E.2d 667, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 807 (2009) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-95).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 38 C.J.S., Garnishment, § 379 et seq.