ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/12-711 (2026)

Contest of answer and trial

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/12-711) (from Ch. 110, par. 12-711)
    Sec. 12-711. Contest of answer and trial.
    (a) The judgment creditor or the judgment debtor may contest the truth or sufficiency of the garnishee's answer and the court shall immediately, unless for good cause the hearing is postponed, proceed to try the issues. The answer of the garnishee shall be considered denied without further pleading.
    (b) At any time on or before the return date, the judgment debtor may request a hearing to dispute the garnishment or to seek exemptions for certain moneys or property by notifying the clerk of the court before that time, using forms as may be provided by the clerk of the court. To obtain a hearing in counties with a population of 1,000,000 or more, the judgment debtor must notify the clerk of the court in person and in writing at the clerk's office before the return date specified in the summons, or appear in court on the date and time specified in the summons. To obtain a hearing in counties with a population of less than 1,000,000, the judgment debtor must notify the clerk of the court in writing at the clerk's office on or before the return date specified in the summons. The clerk of the court will provide a prompt hearing date and the necessary forms that must be prepared by the judgment debtor or the attorney for the judgment debtor and sent to the judgment creditor and the garnishee, or their attorneys, regarding the time and location of the hearing. This notice may be sent by regular first class mail. At the hearing the court shall immediately, unless for good cause the hearing is continued, proceed to try the issues.
    (c) The trial shall be conducted as in other civil cases.
    (d) If the finding or verdict is against a garnishee, appropriate judgment or other orders shall be entered against the garnishee and in favor of the judgment debtor to whom the garnishee is indebted, or for whom the garnishee holds property, for the use of the judgment creditor, in the same manner as if the facts are admitted.
    (e) No garnishment order shall be entered in favor of the judgment creditor unless the certificate of mailing required by subsection (b) of Section 12-705 is filed and the garnishee's answer to the interrogatories certifies that a copy of the answer was mailed to the judgment debtor in accordance with Section 12-707 of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 87-1252.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Gataric v. Colak, 2016 IL App (1st) 151281 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gataric v. Colak, 2016 IL App (1st) 151281 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 735 ILCS 5/12-711(c) (West 2014). Khoury maintains that in an ordinary civil case the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Busey Bank v. Salyards, 711 N.E.2d 10 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “Its only relevance here is to the question of whether Farmers Merchants' failure to comply with the turnover order was wilful. In a garnishment proceeding, the judgment against the garnishee is in favor of the judgment debtor, to whom the garnishee is indebted or for whom the…”
Cont'l Indem. Co. v. BII, Inc., 104 F.4th 630 (7th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “For example, 735 ILCS 5/12-711 specifies: Contest of answer and trial (a) The judgment creditor or the judgment debtor may contest the truth or sufficiency of the garnishee’s answer and the court shall im- mediately, unless for good cause the hearing is postponed, proceed to try…”
Hurley v. Gaertner (In Re Hurley), 158 B.R. 115 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “” 735 ILCS 5/12-711(b). *121 However, since this new statute was not yet enacted at the time of the garnishment in this case, and there is no indication that it is retroactive, Hurley cannot be held to the specific requirements of that law.”
Buckner v. Causey (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 3× “In its brief, Gallant/Warrior claims that the trial court abused its discre­ tion. However, discretion has nothing to do with the issue.”
Hayward v. Scorte, 2019 IL App (1st) 190476 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 735 ILCS 5/12-711(a) (West 2016). Courts view all provisions of a statute as a whole; when two or more provisions relate to the same subject, they “are presumed operative and harmonious and should be construed with reference to each other to give effect to all the provisions…”
Busey Bank v. Salyards (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “In a garnishment proceeding, the judgment against the garnishee is in favor of the judgment debtor, to whom the garnishee is indebted or for whom the garnishee holds property, for the use of the judgment creditor.”
— 735 ILCS 5/12-711(a) — 2 cases
Cont'l Indem. Co. v. BII, Inc., 104 F.4th 630 (7th Cir. 2024). “For example, 735 ILCS 5/12-711 specifies: Contest of answer and trial (a) The judgment creditor or the judgment debtor may contest the truth or sufficiency of the garnishee’s answer and the court shall im- mediately, unless for good cause the hearing is postponed, proceed to try…”
Hayward v. Scorte, 2019 IL App (1st) 190476 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 735 ILCS 5/12-711(a) (West 2016). Courts view all provisions of a statute as a whole; when two or more provisions relate to the same subject, they “are presumed operative and harmonious and should be construed with reference to each other to give effect to all the provisions…”
— 735 ILCS 5/12-711(b) — 1 case
Hurley v. Gaertner (In Re Hurley), 158 B.R. 115 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “” 735 ILCS 5/12-711(b). *121 However, since this new statute was not yet enacted at the time of the garnishment in this case, and there is no indication that it is retroactive, Hurley cannot be held to the specific requirements of that law.”
— 735 ILCS 5/12-711(c) — 2 cases
Gataric v. Colak, 2016 IL App (1st) 151281 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “” 735 ILCS 5/12-711(c) (West 2014). Khoury maintains that in an ordinary civil case the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Buckner v. Causey (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “In its brief, Gallant/Warrior claims that the trial court abused its discre­ tion. However, discretion has nothing to do with the issue.”
— 735 ILCS 5/12-711(d) — 3 cases
Busey Bank v. Salyards, 711 N.E.2d 10 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “Its only relevance here is to the question of whether Farmers Merchants' failure to comply with the turnover order was wilful. In a garnishment proceeding, the judgment against the garnishee is in favor of the judgment debtor, to whom the garnishee is indebted or for whom the…”
Buckner v. Causey (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “In its brief, Gallant/Warrior claims that the trial court abused its discre­ tion. However, discretion has nothing to do with the issue.”
Busey Bank v. Salyards (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “In a garnishment proceeding, the judgment against the garnishee is in favor of the judgment debtor, to whom the garnishee is indebted or for whom the garnishee holds property, for the use of the judgment creditor.”
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.