O.C.G.A. § 18-4-18 (2019)
Priority of conflicting claims to money or property
When money or other property in court is subject to a third-party claim or to more than one garnishment case, the party with the oldest entered judgment shall have priority to such money or other property and any interested party to any one of the garnishment cases may make a motion to the court where such money or other property has been deposited for the distribution of such money or other property. Each party of interest in each case and the clerk of court shall be served with a copy of the motion. Upon hearing the motion, the court shall enter an order directing that the clerk be paid the court cost of each garnishment proceeding first, and all remaining money or other property shall be distributed in accordance with the laws governing the relative priority of claims, judgments, and liens.
History
Code 1981, § 18-4-18, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1895, § 4724; former Code 1933, § 46-513 as it read after passage of Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1; and former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Effect of garnishment proceedings on creditor’s liens. - Merely suing out garnishment proceedings will not alter priority of creditor’s liens against bank deposits. Patterson v. Beck, 133 Ga. 701, 66 S.E. 911, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 29 (1910) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4724). By initiating garnishment proceeding, junior judgment creditor acquires no priority over senior judgment creditor. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank v. Wray, 144 Ga. App. 769, 242 S.E.2d 365, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1779 (1978) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-513). 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. § 18-4-96). Exception to no lien rule exists in alimony cases when there is an execution against the property or an attachment of the proceeds of the sale of the defendant’s property for past due installments. Cale v. Hale, 157 Ga. App. 412, 277 S.E.2d 770, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1848 (1981) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96). An ex-wife’s fi. fa. and summons of garnishment relate back to original di-
vorce judgment entered against her exhusband and she takes priority as the holder of oldest judgment; but she can take priority only in that portion of the garnishment fund which represents exhusband’s arrearage on the date of the second creditor’s judgment because she
does not have a lien at the latter date for future installments that were not yet payable. Cale v. Hale, 157 Ga. App. 412, 277 S.E.2d 770, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1848 (1981) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions rendered under former O.C.G.A. § 184-96 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Summons of garnishment establishes lien which attaches from date of service. - Summons of garnishment directing garnishee to deliver any property into court that is subject to garnishment establishes lien on subject property that attaches from date of service of summons of garnishment. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U81-25 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96). Garnishment action remains ancillary to or dependent upon principal action between creditor and debtor, even though it establishes lien on subject property. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U81-25 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96). Rank of judgment on which garnishment depends determines priority. - Because of ancillary nature of gar-
nishment, the relevant factor in determining priorities of several garnishments is rank of judgment on which garnishment is dependent and not rank of garnishment lien. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U81-25 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96). Priority lien that initial garnishing creditor obtains by virtue of initial creditor’s having first served garnishee does not defeat priority of subsequent garnishing creditor with senior judgment. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U81-25 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96). When two or more judgment creditors claim priority to money or property that is paid into court pursuant to summons of garnishment, the garnishing creditor whose judgment is founded on senior judgment has priority over garnishing creditor whose judgment is founded on junior judgment. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U81-25 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Funds deposited in court as subject of garnishment, 1 A.L.R.3d 936.