O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 18-4-40 (2019)

Right to continuing garnishment process; applicable provisions

✓ 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) In addition to garnishment proceedings otherwise available under this chapter, 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,” a plaintiff shall be entitled to the process of continuing garnishment against any garnishee who is an employer of or under periodic obligations for payment to the defendant against whom the judgment has been obtained.

(b) Unless otherwise specifically provided in this article, Article 1 of this chapter shall apply to this article.

History

Code 1981, § 18-4-40, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255; Ga. L. 2020, p. 691, § 19/SB 443.

The 2020 amendment, effective January 1, 2021, inserted “or under periodic obligations for payment to” near the end of subsection (a).

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726; former Civil Code 1910, § 5292; former Code 1933, § 46-101; and former O.C.G.A. §§ 18-4-110 and 18-4-111 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Applicability of section. - Former provisions applied when there had been trial of issues on traverse to garnishee’s answer. Fagan v. Jackson & Orme, 1 Ga. App. 24, 57 S.E. 1052, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 136 (1907) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726); South Ga. Grocery Co. v. Wade Chambers Grocery Co., 12 Ga. App. 213, 77 S.E. 6, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 496 (1913) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 5292). Judgment rendered in foreign jurisdiction. - Summons of garnishment cannot legally issue upon judgment rendered in a foreign jurisdiction. Allman v. Hardee, Barovick, Konecky & Braun, 152 Ga. App. 551, 263 S.E.2d 489, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 3035 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-101). Judgment against defendant must be capable of present enforcement, and not an oral judgment. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Brown, 3 Ga. App. 561, 60 S.E. 319, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 373 (1908) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726). Judgment must be introduced in evidence, although the garnishee and the plaintiff agree that the claim is a proceeding upon judgment. Mitchell v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 7 Ga. App. 824, 68 S.E. 343, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 545 (1910) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726). Discharge in bankruptcy will prevent rendition of judgment against the defendant and sureties on dissolution bond. A. Klipstein & Co. v. Allen-Miles Co., 136 F. 385, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4470 (5th Cir. 1905) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726). Joint judgment against defendant and garnishee is void as to latter. Dent v. Dent, 118 Ga. 853, 45 S.E. 680, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 737 (1903) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726).

Joint judgment cannot by amendment be converted into separate judgments. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Brown, 3 Ga. App. 561, 60 S.E. 319, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 373 (1908) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4726). Only employers subject to continuing garnishment. - Purpose of former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110 was to ensure that only employers will be subject to continuing garnishment and that nonemployer garnishees will be automatically discharged with regard to the continuing aspect of the action; however, the section does not purport to discharge a nonemployer garnishee from such general garnishment liability as existed at time original answer was filed. Melnick v. Fund Mgt., Inc., 172 Ga. App. 773, 324 S.E.2d 595, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2662 (1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4110). Restitution order was a money judgment for purposes of continuing garnishment under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4110. Cameron v. Pickering, 219 Ga. App. 877, 467 S.E.2d 210, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 42 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110). Garnishment action properly allowed. - Trial court did not err by allowing a garnishment action to proceed because the garnishor was not pursuing a reverse-piercing claim, or any other equitable action, against the garnishee; rather, the action arose from a garnishment action expressly authorized by law. Carrier411 Servs. v. Insight Tech., Inc., 322 Ga. App. 167, 744 S.E.2d 356, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 473 (2013) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-110). Garnished funds as property of debtor’s bankruptcy estate. - Funds in the amount of $475.86 which a debtor’s employer remitted to a Georgia magistrate court after the debtor’s landlord filed a garnishment action to collect unpaid rent were property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 because the magistrate court still held the funds at the time the debtor declared bankruptcy; although the courts were divided on the issue of whether funds that

were paid to a state court under Georgia’s garnishment statute were property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate, the better rule was that a judgment defendant in a Georgia garnishment proceeding retained title to wages garnished from the defendant and deposited into the registry of the garnishment court until such wages were distributed by the court. Shubert v. Murray (In re Shubert), 525 B.R. 536, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 230 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2015) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4110). Unpaid retirement benefits not subject to garnishment. - Retirement benefits paid into registry of trial court by garnishee were not subject to garnishment because the defendant never received actual possession of benefits. Birchfield v. Birchfield, 165 Ga. App. 101, 299 S.E.2d 409, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1778 (1983) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-111). Garnishment subject to bankruptcy stay. - Clearly all debts owed by the garnishees to the debtor and all property, money, or effects of the debtor in possession or control of the garnishees at the time of service of the summons of continuing garnishment are portions of the estate of the debtor so that garnishment proceedings directed at these assets are subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 (bankruptcy). Stone v. George F. Richardson, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 232, 312 S.E.2d 339, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 3035 (1983), overruled in part, State v. Glover, 281 Ga. 633, 641 S.E.2d 543, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 189 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-111).

Independent liability of the garnishees arises when the garnishees are no longer in possession due to some arrangement between the defendant and the garnishees after the date of the service of the summons of continuing garnishment upon the garnishees, designed to defeat the lien of such garnishment. Stone v. George F. Richardson, Inc., 169 Ga. App. 232, 312 S.E.2d 339, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 3035 (1983), overruled in part, State v. Glover, 281 Ga. 633, 641 S.E.2d 543, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 189 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-111). Garnished funds as property of debtor’s bankruptcy estate. - Funds in the amount of $475.86 which a debtor’s employer remitted to a Georgia magistrate court after the debtor’s landlord filed a garnishment action to collect unpaid rent were property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 because the magistrate court still held the funds at the time the debtor declared bankruptcy; although courts were divided on the issue of whether funds that were paid to a state court under Georgia’s garnishment statute were property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate, the better rule was that a judgment defendant in a Georgia garnishment proceeding retained title to wages garnished from the debtor and deposited into the registry of the garnishment court until such wages were distributed by the court. Shubert v. Murray (In re Shubert), 525 B.R. 536, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 230 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2015) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-111).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, §§ 2, 69 et seq., 326 et seq. 31 Am. Jur. 2d, Exemptions, § 277.

C.J.S. 38 C.J.S., Garnishment, §§ 1 et seq., 110, 140 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Stoker v. Severin, 665 S.E.2d 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
Stoker v. Severin, 665 S.E.2d 913 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “2 OCGA § 18-4-40 (prejudgment garnishment).”
Grant v. Newsome, 411 S.E.2d 796 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “None of these procedures was followed in this case, and we find no authority for the defendants to freeze the account.”
McArthur Elec., Inc. v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 642 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. 2007). · cites it 2× “However, the right to pre-judgment garnishment is narrowly confined to the circumstances enumerated in OCGA § 18-4-40, and a dispute between general contractors and subcontractors is not one of those circumstances.”
Young v. Bank of Quitman, 349 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “The court also found as a matter of fact and law that the procedural provisions of OCGA § 18-4-40 et seq. providing for prejudgment garnishments had been met sufficiently.”
Gene Thompson Lumber Co. v. Davis Parmer Lumber Co., 984 F.2d 401 (11th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “On October 9, Davis-Parmer Lumber sought, and the court subsequently issued, a writ of garnishment against Thompson Lumber’s bank pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 18-4-40 (Michie 1991). The writ was served on the bank on October 13.”
Grande Carpet Co. v. Bedco Assocs. 1, 318 S.E.2d 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 18-4-40. The defendants traversed the garnishment, and the trial court, after an evidentiary hearing, dismissed the garnishments.”
S. Piedmont Law, Pc. v. Jionel E. Pierre (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Nothing in OCGA § 9-15-14 permitted the trial court to break Southern Piedmont’s judgment into monthly payments and delay final execution of the award for two years.”
Lynch v. Trotti, 327 S.E.2d 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “See Georgia Code Title 18, Chapter 4, Article 3, “Prejudgment Garnishment Proceedings Generally”; and OCGA § 18-4-40. The appellee Kathryn Trotti responds that the appeal is moot, and shows in her brief an agreement between the parties in the main case (trustee and trust…”
Jason Mitchell Hines (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2023). “§ 18-4-2; § 18-4-40. The issuance of a writ of possession for failure to pay rent pending an appeal is not a money judgment because it does not authorize any of these remedies that would otherwise enable collection of money from a party as a personal liability or a lien on the…”
Georgia Farm Bldgs., Inc. v. Willard, 597 F. Supp. 629 (N.D. Ga. 1984). “The date of this Order is not disclosed in the record. This information was obtained from the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals dated January 3, 1984, discussed infra (Civil Action No.”
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.