Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448When 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.
(Code 1981, §18-4-18, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255.)
- 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.
- 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) (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) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-513).
- 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) (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) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96).
An ex-wife's fi. fa. and summons of garnishment relate back to original divorce judgment entered against her ex-husband 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 ex-husband'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) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96).
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions rendered under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-96 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
- 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).
- Because of ancillary nature of garnishment, 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).
- Funds deposited in court as subject of garnishment, 1 A.L.R.3d 936.
No results found for Georgia Code 18-4-18.