Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 18-4-22 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 18-4-22 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 18-4-22

TITLE 18 DEBTOR AND CREDITOR

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

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

18-4-22. Financial institution as garnishee; failure to answer.

When a garnishee is a financial institution and fails or refuses to file a garnishee answer by the fifteenth day after the date of 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, §18-4-22, 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. § 18-4-22

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc. v. MacKey, 350 S.E.2d 439 (Ga. 1986).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Dec 2, 1986 | 256 Ga. 499, 8 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1925

...In the unreported case of Mor-wood, Inc. v. Savannah Bank &c. Co., (Case No. 71977, decided April 7, 1986), the Court of Appeals held that an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) was not subject to garnishment under either ERISA, 29 USCA § 1001 et seq., or the Georgia law, OCGA § 18-4-22.1, while in Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency &c. Inc., 178 Ga. App. 467 (343 SE2d 492) (1986), it held that a longshoremen's employee vacation and holiday fund, although garnishable under ERISA, was not so under Georgia law. Both garnishors appeal. OCGA § 18-4-22.1 provides: "Funds or benefits of a pension, retirement, or employee benefit plan or program subject to the provisions of the Federal Employees Retirement Act of 1974, as amended, shall not be subject to the process of garnishment (1) unti...
...Here Lanier seeks to reach its debtor's interest in a longshoremen's vacation and holiday fund, of which Mackey is the trustee. While this fund is subject to garnishment under ERISA, it is nevertheless protected by the Georgia statute. On its face, OCGA § 18-4-22.1, quoted above, makes no distinction between types of benefit plans. It unambiguously states that "funds or benefits of a pension, retirement or employee benefit plan or program" under ERISA shall not be subject to garnishment. [1] Therefore, we must conclude that OCGA § 18-4-22.1 purports to protect such funds from garnishment (except as provided otherwise in the statute)....
..., such state laws were preempted. [3] Thus Shaw teaches that a "law `relates to' an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan." (Footnote deleted.) Id. at 98. Clearly then, OCGA § 18-4-22.1 "relates to" ERISA since it purports to regulate garnishment of ERISA funds and benefits, a matter specifically provided for under ERISA....
...IBEW-NECA Holiday Trust Fund, 583 SW2d 154 (Mo. 1979). Therefore, given the broad interpretation of 29 USCA § 1144 (a) by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., supra, and finding no exception to preemption within its provisions, we must conclude that OCGA § 18-4-22.1 insofar as it conflicts with ERISA is preempted by federal law....
Copy

Rbc Global Asset Mgmt. (u.s.) Inc. v. Lattimore, 907 S.E.2d 696 (Ga. 2024).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 15, 2024 | 320 Ga. 77

...judgment and, thereafter, Lattimore served the default judgment on Global. Global did not move to reduce the default judgment within the next 90 days as provided in OCGA § 18-4-24 (a). On October 23, 2023, Global moved to set aside the default 1 OCGA § 18-4-22 provides: When a garnishee is a financial institution and fails or refuses to file a garnishee answer by the fifteenth day after the date of service of the summons of garnishment, such garnishee shall automatically be in default....
...curred because the garnishee had actual notice of the consequences of engaging in the specified wrongful conduct. The court did not address Lattimore’s equal protection argument. The court also ruled that no excessive fine exists here because OCGA § 18-4-22 sets the amount of default judgments and garnishment courts lack authority to reduce that amount....