O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89 (2019)

Release of garnishment

✓ 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

“IN THE

STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action File No. ) ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff v. Defendant Garnishee

RELEASE OF GARNISHMENT To: Garnishee This is to notify you that you have been released from filing a Garnishee Answer to any and all Summons of Garnishment or Summons of Continuing Garnishment pending as of this date in the above-styled case. This release authorizes you to pay or deliver to the Defendant in garnishment any money or other property in your possession belonging to the Defendant. This release does not terminate the garnishment proceedings, nor does this release relieve you of any obligation placed on you by the service of a Summons of Garnishment subsequent to this date. This

day of

, 20

. Clerk,

Court of

County

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have this day served the Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s Attorney, the Defendant, and the Garnishee in the foregoing matter with a copy of this pleading by depositing it in the United States Mail in a properly addressed envelope with adequate postage thereon. This

day of

, 20

. Deputy Clerk of Court”

History

Code 1981, § 18-4-89, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1984–2016 · leading case: Akridge v. Silva, 681 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Akridge v. Silva, 681 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 26× “On appeal, Akridge contends that OCGA § 18-4-89 required the court to disburse the funds to him, that Silva did not assert his claim to the funds in a timely manner, that principles of res judicata barred Silva’s claim, and that Akridge’s claim to the funds had priority over…”

Sw. Airlines Co. v. Tidewater Fin. Co. (In re Cole), 552 B.R. 903 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2016). · cites it 4× “” O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89. If the garnishee fails to file an answer by the forty-fifth day after service of the garnishment summons, the garnishee is automatically in default, but it may open the default as a matter of right within fifteen days.”

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 479 B.R. 159 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2012). · cites it 6× “O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89. If the garnishee does not timely file an answer, the garnishee is automatically in default.”

In Re Williams, 460 B.R. 915 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011). · cites it 4× “§ 18-4-89(1). If no money or other property has been delivered by the garnishee, “judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff and against the garnishee for the money or other property and execution shall issue on the judgment.”

Shubert v. Murray (In re Shubert), 525 B.R. 536 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2015). · cites it 3× “§ 18-4-89. Once that delivery has taken place (or, if the wages were not deposited by the garnishee with the court, then upon entry of judgment), the defendant’s right to file a traverse is extinguished.”

Fontaine v. Stuhler, 323 S.E.2d 881 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “” Relying upon OCGA § 18-4-89 (3) plaintiff contends the trial court should have rendered a more specific judgment against the Siemers because the responses set forth in the amended answers were not sufficient to identify the property subject to garnishment.”

— 18-4-89(1) — 2 cases

In Re Williams, 460 B.R. 915 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011). “§ 18-4-89(1). If no money or other property has been delivered by the garnishee, “judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff and against the garnishee for the money or other property and execution shall issue on the judgment.”

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 479 B.R. 159 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2012). “O.C.G.A. § 18-4-89. If the garnishee does not timely file an answer, the garnishee is automatically in default.”

— 18-4-89(2) — 1 case

— 18-4-89(3) — 1 case

— 18-4-89(a) — 1 case

Shubert v. Murray (In re Shubert), 525 B.R. 536 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2015). “§ 18-4-89. Once that delivery has taken place (or, if the wages were not deposited by the garnishee with the court, then upon entry of judgment), the defendant’s right to file a traverse is extinguished.”

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.