O.C.G.A. § 18-4-2 (2019)
Uniform procedures for garnishment; entitlement to procedures; application of the Civil Practice Act; amendment
(a) The procedure in garnishment cases shall be uniform in all courts throughout this state that have jurisdiction to preside over garnishment proceedings.
(b) In all cases when a money judgment was obtained in a court of this state or a federal court or is being enforced in this state as provided in Article 5 of Chapter 12 of Title 9, the “Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act,” or Article 6 of Chapter 12 of Title 9, the “Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law,” the plaintiff shall be entitled to the process of garnishment.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, Chapter 11 of Title 9 shall apply in garnishment proceedings in the state courts and superior courts of this state.
(d) Any affidavit, garnishee answer, or pleading required or permitted by this chapter shall be amendable at any time before judgment is entered or before money or other property subject to garnishment is distributed by the court; however, no person or entity not named as garnishee in the original affidavit of garnishment filed in an action may be added as a garnishee by any amendment in such action absent a showing that any such amendment is done to correct or clarify the identity of an originally named garnishee.
History
Code 1981, § 18-4-2, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255; Ga. L. 2020, p. 691, § 2/SB 443. The 2020 amendment, effective January 1, 2021, added “in the state courts and superior courts of this state” at the end of subsection (c) and added “; however, no
person or entity not named as garnishee in the original affidavit of garnishment filed in an action may be added as a garnishee by any amendment in such action absent a showing that any such amendment is done to correct or clarify the identity of an originally named garnishee” at the end of subsection (d).
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Ga. L. 1884-55, p. 54, former Civil Code 1895, § 4708, former Civil Code 1910, §§ 5265 and 5268, former Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1, former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-3, and former O.C.G.A. T. 18, Ch. 4, Art. 4 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Constitutionality. - Postjudgment garnishment procedure meets requirements of judicial supervision and notice, and is not unconstitutional for those reasons. Easterwood v. LeBlanc, 240 Ga. 61, 239 S.E.2d 383, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1395 (1977) (decided under former Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1); Farmer v. Farmer, 147 Ga. App. 387, 249 S.E.2d 106, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2697 (1978) (decided under former Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1). Post-judgment garnishment proceedings are not unconstitutional for lack of due process. Morgan v. Morgan, 156 Ga. App. 726, 275 S.E.2d 673, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 3182 (1980) (decided under former Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1). Amendment after evidence but prior to judgment. - It was not error to allow a party to amend the party’s garnishment affidavit only a few days before judgment, and after all the evidence had been presented. Coleman v. Burnett, 169
Ga. App. 297, 312 S.E.2d 627, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 3053 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-3). Absence of a judge’s or clerk’s signature on an affidavit for garnishment did not constitute a nonamendable defect justifying the grant of a motion to set aside a judgment. Horizon Credit Corp. v. Lanier Bank & Trust Co., 220 Ga. App. 362, 469 S.E.2d 452, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 194 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-3). Parties to proceedings. - Post-judgment garnishments primarily involve a plaintiff (bank) and garnishee (employer) with a very limited right of participation by the defendant (debtor). Flournoy v. Pate (In re Antley), 18 B.R. 207, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4650 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. T. 18, Ch. 4, Art. 4). Defendant debtor was not a “party” to a garnishment proceeding, although provision was made in former O.C.G.A. § 184-64 for defendant debtor to receive notice. The defendant debtor at the defendant debtor’s option may become a party by compliance with former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-93 for the limited purposes set out in former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65. Flournoy v. Pate (In re Antley), 18 B.R. 207, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4650 (Bankr. M.D. Ga.
1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. T. 18, Ch. 4, Art. 4). Dismissal of proceeding upon notification of bankruptcy. - Judgment creditor’s attorney had an affirmative duty to dismiss the garnishment proceeding upon notification of bankruptcy. Dennis v. Pentagon Fed. Credit Union, 17 B.R. 558, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 4968 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. T. 18, Ch. 4, Art. 4). Proceedings must be based on a domestic, not a foreign judgment. Union Inv. Co. v. Southern Ry., 32 Ga. App. 478, 124 S.E. 77, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 478 (1924) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5265).
Separate affidavit and bond is required for each judgment as to which garnishment is sought. Rich & Co. v. Kiser & Co., 61 Ga. 370, 1878 Ga. LEXIS 127 (1878) (decided under former Ga. L. 188455, p. 54). Impact of consolidation. - Consolidation by assignee of two executions issued on judgments obtained in separate suits in affidavit and bond renders proceedings illegal and void. Morgan v. Latham, 111 Ga. 835, 36 S.E. 99, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 788 (1900) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4708); Wright v. Stewart, 22 Ga. App. 655, 97 S.E. 193, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 663 (1918) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5268).
RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 38 C.J.S., Garnishment, § 140 et seq. ALR. Discharge of attachment or garnish-
ment, or bond for its dissolution, by subsequent amendment of pleadings or writ, 74 A.L.R. 912.