ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

18-4-21. Failure of garnishee to file answer; default.

Except as provided in Code Section 18-4-22, when a garnishee fails or refuses to file a garnishee answer by the forty-fifth day after service of the summons of garnishment, such garnishee shall automatically be in default. The default may be opened as a matter of right by the filing of a garnishee answer within 15 days of the day of default and payment of costs. If the case is still in default after the expiration of the period of 15 days, judgment by default may be entered at any time thereafter against such garnishee for the amount remaining due on the judgment obtained against the defendant as shown in the plaintiff's affidavit of garnishment.

(Code 1981, §18-4-21, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255.)

Law reviews.

- For note discussing default by the garnishee, see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 814 (1978).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

When claim for default arises.

- Claim arises against the garnishee at the time the garnishee falls into default by failing to file answers in a continuing garnishment proceeding, and is separate and distinct from any claim which may have existed prior to that time. Fazio v. Growth Dev. Corp., 168 Bankr. 1009 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90).

Garnishee failed to amend the defective answer as permitted by law and, pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90, the garnishee was automatically in default. Because the garnishee failed to establish the presence of a nonamendable defect on the face of the record or pleadings, the court abused the court's discretion by granting the motion to set aside the default judgment. Oxmoor Portfolio, LLC v. Flooring & Tile Superstore of Conyers, Inc., 320 Ga. App. 640, 740 S.E.2d 363 (2013) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90).

Former O.C.G.A.

§ 18-4-91 only applicable to default judgments under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90. - Because a debtor's principal had answered a garnishment action by a judgment creditor, denying that the principal held any money or assets of the debtor, and the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the creditor after holding an evidentiary hearing on the merits, it was error for the trial court to have reduced the judgment pursuant to the principal's motion under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-91, as such was only applicable when a default judgment was obtained pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90. United Maint., Inc. v. Wilson, 265 Ga. App. 683, 595 S.E.2d 376 (2004) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-90).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 357.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 18-4-21

Total Results: 3 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

City of Atlanta v. Gilmere, 314 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. 1984).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 4, 1984 | 252 Ga. 406

...tire amount of the judgment which Gilmere previously had obtained against Craig. The Court of Appeals affirmed the holding to the City's liability. We granted the City's petition for writ of certiorari, positing the following question: "Whether OCGA § 18-4-21 (Code Ann....

...§ 43-306) waives municipal immunity from lawsuit when the judgment serving as the basis for issuance of the summons of garnishment arises out of liability incurred in the scope of the official's or employee's governmental employment while responding to an emergency." The issue here is, of course, whether OCGA § 18-4-21 (Code Ann....

Copy

Harp v. Winkles, 255 Ga. 42 (Ga. 1985).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 17, 1985 | 335 S.E.2d 292

...The judgment arose out of the arrest of Harp in Adairsville by Winkles, a Cartersville police officer answering an “officer down” call. Harp filed a garnishment proceeding against Winkles with the City of Cartersville as garnishee. The city answered, claiming that Winkles’ wages were exempt under OCGA § 18-4-21 (Code Ann....

...e United States and Georgia Constitutions in that it ere-*43ates a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable. 1. Harp’s argument that the court erred in dismissing the garnishment proceeding because the city had no standing to raise OCGA § 18-4-21 is without merit. We are not called upon to decide whether the city had standing to raise the defense of OCGA § 18-4-21 because after the city answered the garnishment petition Winkles filed a traverse to the plaintiff’s affidavit and raised the code section himself. 2....

...when they continued on their way they were still in the process of responding to an emergency. There was testimony that they doubted the authenticity of the cancellation. 3. Finally, we must consider Harp’s attack on the constitutionality of OCGA § 18-4-21 on the basis that it is vague and on the basis that it violates equal protection....

...We find that the exemption from garnishment of wages of governmental employees whose liability arose from their actions in responding to an emergency in the scope of their employment is not violative of equal protection of the laws for two reasons. First, OCGA § 18-4-21 is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, allowing garnishment of the wages of governmental employees....

Nbcuniversal Media, LLC v. Walker (Ga. 2026).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 3, 2026 | 335 S.E.2d 292

Syfert Injury Law Firm

2018 Georgia Code 18-4-21 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 18 DEBTOR AND CREDITOR

Section 4. Garnishment Proceedings, 18-4-1 through 18-4-89.