O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 18-4-7 (2019)

Required information on summons of garnishment or attachment thereto; form usage; failure to use correct form

✓ 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) The amount shown on the summons of garnishment shall not exceed the amount the defendant owes the plaintiff pursuant to a judgment. (b)(1) A summons of garnishment, or an attachment thereto, shall state on its face with particularity all of the following information, to the extent reasonably available to the plaintiff: (A) The name of the defendant and, to the extent such would reasonably enable the garnishee to properly respond to the summons of garnishment, all known configurations, nicknames, aliases, former or maiden names, trade names, or variations thereof; (B) The service address and the current address of the defendant and, to the extent such would reasonably enable the garnishee to properly respond to the summons of garnishment and such is reasonably available to the plaintiff, the past addresses of the defendant; and (C) The social security number or federal tax identification number of the defendant; provided, however, that if such summons is filed with a court, the court filing shall be redacted in accordance with Code Section 9-11-7.1 or 15-10-54, as applicable. The defendant’s full social security number or federal tax identification number shall be made known to the garnishee and defendant in accordance with Code Section 9-11-7.1 or 15-10-54, as applicable, to the extent such information is reasonably available to the plaintiff. (2) The form for a summons of garnishment on a financial institution shall not be used for a continuing garnishment or continuing garnishment for support. A summons of garnishment on a financial institution, or an attachment thereto, shall also state with particularity the defendant’s account, identification, or tracking numbers known to the plaintiff used by the garnishee in the identification or administration of the defendant’s funds or property; provided, however, that if such summons is filed with a court, the court filing shall be redacted in accordance with Code Section 9-11-7.1 or 15-10-54, as applicable. The defendant’s account, identification, or tracking numbers shall be made known to the garnishee and defendant in accordance with Code Section 9-11-7.1 or 15-10-54, as applicable, to the extent such information is known to the plaintiff. (3) A misspelling of any information required by this subsection, other than the surname of a natural person defendant, shall not

invalidate a summons of garnishment, so long as such information is not misleading in a search of the garnishee’s records. (c) The form for a summons of garnishment is set forth in Code Section 18-4-74, and the optional attachment thereto is set forth in Code Section 18-4-75. The form for a summons of garnishment on a financial institution is set forth in Code Section 18-4-76, and the attachment thereto is set forth in Code Section 18-4-77. The form for a summons of garnishment on a financial institution shall not be used for a continuing garnishment or continuing garnishment for support. (d) When a plaintiff uses the incorrect form for a summons of garnishment of any type, the garnishment shall not be valid and the garnishee shall be relieved of all liability.

History

Code 1981, § 18-4-7, enacted by Ga. L.

2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255; Ga. L. 2018, p. 820, § 3/SB 194.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 38 C.J.S., Garnishment, §§ 173 et seq., 185 et seq.

ALR. Who may serve writ, summons, or notice of garnishment, 75 A.L.R.2d 1433.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Blach v. Diaz-Verson, 810 S.E.2d 129 (Ga. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Blach v. Diaz-Verson, 810 S.E.2d 129 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 6× “3 See OCGA § 18-4-7 (d) ("When a plaintiff uses the incorrect form for a summons of garnishment of any type, the garnishment shall not be valid and the garnishee shall be relieved of all liability.”

Blach v. Diaz-Verson, 303 Ga. 63 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 6× “3 See OCGA § 18-4-7 (d) (“When a plaintiff uses the incorrect form for a summons of garnishment of any type, the garnishment shall not be valid and the garnishee shall be relieved of all liability.”

Borden v. Johnson, 395 S.E.2d 628 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 18-4-7 (which prohibits the discharge of any employee because his earnings have been subjected to garnishment for any one indebtedness); OCGA § 34-1-2 (which criminalizes the discharge of employees on the basis of age); OCGA § 34-1-3 (which authorizes an employee who…”

Eckhardt v. Yerkes Reg'l Primate Ctr., 561 S.E.2d 164 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “, OCGA §§ 18-4-7 (employer cannot discharge employee whose earnings are subject to garnishment); 34-1-3 (employer cannot *39 discharge employee who is absent to attend judicial proceeding in response to court order). Moreover, Decided February 22, 2002 Leslie E.”

Mattox v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 534 S.E.2d 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “8 See OCGA § 18-4-7 (prohibiting the discharge of an employee because his earnings have been subject to garnishment for any one indebtedness).”

Rbc Global Asset Mgmt. (u.s.) Inc. v. Lattimore, 907 S.E.2d 696 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 14× “Because Lattimore used the wrong garnishment summons form, Global contended that Lattimore failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over it and the garnishment action and resulting default judgment are invalid under OCGA § 18-4-7 (d). Global also argued that, if the $20 million…”

Thompson v. Chapel, 494 S.E.2d 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Thompson’s contention that in retrospect Chapel’s psychological evaluation should have raised a red flag is not sufficiently col-orable to warrant jury consideration, particularly in light of the citations and commendations Chapel received for his job performance.”

Ameriprise Holdings, Inc. v. Kathy Mccampbell, as Surviving Child of Etta Mccampbell (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “13 See OCGA § 18-4-7 (c); OCGA § 18-4-76. 14 OCGA § 18-4-7 (d).”

Wright v. City of Savannah (S.D. Ga. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 18-4-3, and mandates specific information that must be included on a summons of garnishment, see O.C.G.A. § 18-4-7. Wright has not formally complied with the affidavit requirement, and although he provides some of the necessary information, he does not provide all of it.”

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.