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 and18-4-89 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) (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) (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) (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) (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) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-85).

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) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-85).

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) (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 (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); Joiner v. Dougherty-Ward-Little Co., 14 Ga. App. 360, 80 S.E. 854 (1913); Harris v. Exchange Bank, 17 Ga. App. 700, 88 S.E. 40 (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) (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) (decided 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) (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) (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) (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) (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) (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) (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) (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) (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) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-510).

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) (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), Bankr. (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) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89).

Am. Jur. 2d.

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