O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 18-4-20 (2019)

Failure to file claim or traverse in timely manner

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) When no claim has been filed and no traverse has been filed within 20 days after the garnishee’s answer is filed: (1) If money is paid or delivered to the court by the garnishee, the clerk of the court shall pay the money to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney upon application, and the garnishee shall be automatically discharged from further liability with respect to the summons of garnishment so answered; (2) If property is delivered to the court by the garnishee, the sheriff, marshal, constable, or like officer of the court shall sell the property in the manner provided by law for the sale of property levied under an execution, and the garnishee shall be automatically discharged from further liability with respect to the summons of garnishment so answered. The proceeds of such sale shall be paid or delivered to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney upon application; or (3) If money or other property admitted to be subject to the garnishment is not paid or delivered to the court, judgment shall be

entered for the plaintiff and against the garnishee for such money or other property and execution shall issue on the judgment. (b) The application described under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section may be made at any time concurrent with, or following the filing of the garnishment action, and need only be made once in any such action regardless of the number of answers filed.

History

Code 1981, § 18-4-20, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255; Ga. L. 2020, p. 691, § 16/SB 443.

The 2020 amendment, effective January 1, 2021, designated the existing provisions as subsection (a) and added subsection (b).

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1895, § 4721; former Civil Code 1910, § 5283; former Code 1933, § 46-303, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1; former Code 1933, §§ 46-504 and 46-510 as they read after passage of Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1; and former O.C.G.A. §§ 18-4-85 and 18-4-89 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Legislative intent behind former statute was to simplify matters when there was no dispute, and therefore, no need of direct judicial supervision. Marbut Co. v. Capital City Bank, 148 Ga. App. 664, 252 S.E.2d 85, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1600 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-510). Former statute inapplicable. - Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1 was inapplicable when case has proceeded beyond point where further judicial supervision was unnecessary. Marbut Co. v. Capital City Bank, 148 Ga. App. 664, 252 S.E.2d 85, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1600 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-510). Purpose of traverse to garnishee’s answer is to give the garnishee right to be heard and for protection of the garnishee’s rights and interests in the premises. Ole Campbellton Constr. Co. v. Desert Inn & Country Club, 154 Ga. App. 107, 267 S.E.2d 646, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2059 (1980) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-504). Discharge of garnishee upon plaintiff’s failure to traverse answer. - By

enacting a specific time limitation within which the plaintiff must traverse the garnishee’s answer, the legislature expressed a clear intent to provide for automatic discharge of the garnishee from all obligations under the summons if the plaintiff did not notify the court and the garnishee otherwise within the brief prescribed time period. Nockonwood Indus., Inc. v. Tuloka Affiliates, Inc., 164 Ga. App. 424, 296 S.E.2d 405, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2821 (1982) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-85). 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. § 18-485). Failure of plaintiff to include sufficient addresses on summons of garnishment. - In garnishment proceeding, the plaintiff was required to traverse garnishee’s answer within 15 days after filing of answer even though it had not been served with a copy of the answer where it had failed to include its or its attorney’s address on the summons of garnishment. Nockonwood Indus., Inc. v. Tuloka Affiliates, Inc., 164 Ga. App. 424, 296 S.E.2d 405, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2821 (1982)

(decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-485). Effect of failure to serve answers. - When the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney appeared on the summons of garnishment but no certificates of service were attached to the answers and neither the plaintiff nor the attorney acknowledged receipt, the requirement that the plaintiff traverse the answers within 15 days of service was never triggered. Lowery v. Dallis, 237 Ga. App. 309, 513 S.E.2d 740, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 84 (1999) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-85). Garnishee’s answer is accepted as true unless traversed by claimant or defendant. - When garnishee answers summons of garnishment, statements in garnishee’s answer are accepted as true, and garnishee is discharged from all further liability unless either the claimant or the defendant files a traverse contesting the answer. West v. West, 402 F. Supp. 1189, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15502 (N.D. Ga. 1975) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-303). When answer is not traversed, all statements of fact appearing in answer are taken as true. Darlington v. Belt, 12 Ga. App. 522, 77 S.E. 653, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 621 (1913); Joiner v. DoughertyWard-Little Co., 14 Ga. App. 360, 80 S.E. 854, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 446 (1913); Harris v. Exchange Bank, 17 Ga. App. 700, 88 S.E. 40, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 866 (1916) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5283). Unqualified, though general denial of truth of answer, suffices. - Traverse may be amplified at option of the plaintiff, but nothing more is necessary to bring in question the liability of the garnishee to the garnishing creditor than an unqualified, though general, denial of the truth of the garnishee’s answer. Rainey v. Eatonton Coop. Creamery, 69 Ga. App. 547, 26 S.E.2d 297, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 136 (1943) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-303). Plaintiff need not traverse answer admitting that garnishee is indebted for specified sum to the defendant. Harris v. Exchange Bank, 17 Ga. App. 700, 88 S.E. 40, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 866 (1916) (de-

cided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5283). Issue involved is whether garnishee is indebted as averred in traverse; it is not pertinent to such inquiry whether a prior judgment had been rendered against the defendant. Whaley v. Kear, 139 Ga. 16, 76 S.E. 390, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 507 (1912) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5283). Issue whether alleged indebtedness is mere cover for fraud may be tried. Smith v. Dysard Constr. Co., 15 Ga. App. 192, 82 S.E. 761, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 56 (1914) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5283). Absent dissolution bond, defendant not party to trial of issue raised by plaintiff’s traverse of garnishee’s answer. Leake v. Tyner, 112 Ga. 919, 38 S.E. 343, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 128 (1901) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4721). At trial of traverse, plaintiff can recover from garnishee only what the defendant could have recovered from the garnishee. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank v. AVCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 Ga. App. 605, 200 S.E.2d 309, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1076 (1973) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-303). When traverse is filed, burden of proof is upon traversing party. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank v. AVCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 Ga. App. 605, 200 S.E.2d 309, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 1076 (1973) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-303). Burden of proof is on party traversing answer of garnishee. Rockmart Bank v. Nix, 14 Ga. App. 238, 80 S.E. 673, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 190 (1914) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5283). When the defendant gives no bond to dissolve garnishment and there is no claim filed and the only traverse to answer of the garnishee was by the plaintiff in execution, the general rule is that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in execution, the party traversing garnishee’s answer. Rainey v. Eatonton Coop. Creamery, 69 Ga. App. 547, 26 S.E.2d 297, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 136 (1943) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-303). Judgment holder properly denied disbursement of 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. § 18-4-85). Former statute provided for immediate payment when no traverse or claim has been filed. Marbut Co. v. Capital City Bank, 148 Ga. App. 664, 252 S.E.2d 85, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1600 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46510). Burden on plaintiff to identify property subject to garnishment when garnishee does not. - When the garnishee does not identify the property subject to garnishment, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate which property the garnishee holds on behalf of the debtor. Fontaine v. Stuhler, 172 Ga. App. 584, 323 S.E.2d 881, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2591 (1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89). No preclusion of need for court order directing clerk to disburse funds. - Former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89 did not

state that the passage of the 15-day period divests the defendant of any interest in the garnished funds, nor did the statute provide that failing to file a traverse within the 15-day period barred the defendant from thereafter filing one. Although the section authorized the clerk to disburse the garnished funds, the statute did not specify when the clerk must do so and did not preclude the need for a court order directing the clerk to disburse funds. Bowen v. Thompson (In re Thompson), No. 13-52212, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 5610 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 29, 2013) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89). 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. § 18-4-89).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 360.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825 (1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MacKey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825 (1988). · cites it 4× “Consequently, the plan was subject to garnishment under the general state garnishment law, Ga. Code Ann. § 18-4-20 et seq. (1982 and Supp.”
Roche v. Pep Boys, Inc. (In Re Roche), 361 B.R. 615 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2005). · cites it 4× “In accordance with O.C.G.A. § 18-4-20, a Summons of Garnishment was served upon Lockheed Georgia Employees Federal Credit Union on January 31, 2005.”
Barnett v. Barnett, 67 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. 2002). · cites it 2× “[40] Ga.Code Ann. § 18-4-20 et seq. (1982 and Supp.”
Parham v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 341 S.E.2d 889 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 16× “Appellant/garnishee answered the complaints in garnishment, claiming that since the amount of Fund earnings payable to the defendants for the 12-month period did not exceed the federal minimum hourly wage equivalent for that period, the Fund earnings were exempt pursuant to OCGA…”
Grant v. Newsome, 411 S.E.2d 796 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “None of these procedures was followed in this case, and we find no authority for the defendants to freeze the account. OCGA § 17-14-13, authorizing the seizure of money from a prisoner’s inmate account for payment of court-ordered restitution as a result of damage to state…”
Carrier411 Servs., Inc. v. Insight Tech., Inc., 744 S.E.2d 356 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “OCGA §§ 18-4-20 (property subject to garnishment); 18-4-60 (judgment creditor’s right to garnishment); 18-4-61 (court must have jurisdiction over garnishee); 18-4-82 (contents of answer of garnishee).”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 479 B.R. 159 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2012). · cites it 4× “O.C.G.A. § 18-4-20(b) provides: All debts owed by the garnishee to the defendant at the time of service of the sum *168 mons of garnishment upon the garnishee and all debts accruing from the garnishee to the defendant from the date of service to the date of the garnishee's…”
Boyd v. Boyd, 382 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “See OCGA § 18-4-20 (d), (f). We agree and affirm the judgment.”
St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Ross, 596 S.E.2d 193 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 18-4-20 (b); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.”
A. M. Buckler & Assocs., Inc. v. Sanders, 700 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 18-4-20 (property subject to garnishment); 18-4-60 (judgment creditor’s right to garnishment); 18-4-61 (court must have jurisdiction over garnishee); 18-4-82 (contents of answer of gar.”
Akridge v. Silva, 681 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “See generally OCGA § 18-4-20 (describing property subject to garnishment).”
Stone v. George F. Richardson, Inc., 312 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “1769-1771) (now OCGA § 18-4-20 (b)). Decided September 9, 1983 Rehearing denied December 6, 1983.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— 18-4-20(b) — 6 cases
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 479 B.R. 159 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2012). “O.C.G.A. § 18-4-20(b) provides: All debts owed by the garnishee to the defendant at the time of service of the sum *168 mons of garnishment upon the garnishee and all debts accruing from the garnishee to the defendant from the date of service to the date of the garnishee's…”
In Re Williams, 460 B.R. 915 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011).
Strickland v. Alexander, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1397 (N.D. Ga. 2015).
St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Ross, 596 S.E.2d 193 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). “” OCGA § 18-4-20 (b); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.”
Shubert v. Murray (In re Shubert), 525 B.R. 536 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2015).
— 18-4-20(c) — 1 case
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 479 B.R. 159 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2012). “O.C.G.A. § 18-4-20(b) provides: All debts owed by the garnishee to the defendant at the time of service of the sum *168 mons of garnishment upon the garnishee and all debts accruing from the garnishee to the defendant from the date of service to the date of the garnishee's…”
— 18-4-20(d) — 2 cases
Clifford Brown v. Masonry Prods., Inc., Bob Hollingsworth, & Allen Hollingsworth, 874 F.2d 1476 (11th Cir. 1989).
Strickland v. Alexander, 154 F. Supp. 3d 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.