If in any of the above methods it is made to appear that the garnishee was indebted to the
defendant, or had any of the defendant’s property in the garnishee’s hands, at the time of
being served with the notice of garnishment, the garnishee will be liable to the plaintiff, in
case judgment is finally recovered by the plaintiff, to the full amount thereof, or to the amount
of such indebtedness or property held by the garnishee, and the plaintiff may have a judgment
against the garnishee for the amount of money due from the garnishee to the defendant in
the main action, or for the delivery to the sheriff of any money or property in the garnishee’s
hands belonging to the defendant in the main action within a time to be fixed by the court,
and for the value of the same, as fixed in said judgment, if not delivered within the time thus
fixed, unless before such judgment is entered the garnishee has delivered to the sheriff such
money or property. Property so delivered shall thereafter be treated as if levied upon under
the writ of attachment in the usual manner.
[C51, §1871, 1873; R60, §3207, 3209; C73, §2986, 2988; C97, §3946; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39,
§12169; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §642.13]
\n
Notes of Decisions
Shodeen v. Davenport Cement Co. (In Re Aztec Concrete, Inc.), 143 B.R. 537 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa 1992).
· cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 642.13 does appear to support Davenport Concrete’s position by providing: If [the garnishee is indebted to or holds property of defendant], at the time of being served with the notice of garnishment, the garnishee will be liable to the plaintiff .”
Conklin v. Iowa Dist. Court for Scott Cnty., 482 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 1992).
· cites it 2× “13 (1989), provides that if “the garnishee has delivered to the sheriff [the debtor’s] money or property [the] [p]roperty so delivered shall thereafter be treated as if levied upon under the writ of attachment....” Iowa Code chapter 639 governing attachment provides as follows:…”
Shenyang Jinli Metals v. Sivyer Steel Corp. (Iowa Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “Shenyang asserted (1) Sivyer “was in default, but [TBK] lost its priority by failing to take affirmative steps to enforce its right of setoff”; (2) TBK “waived its right of setoff”; 3 and (3) “TBK was liable to [Shenyang]” for the amount of the garnishment under Iowa Code…”
State of Iowa v. Tywon Stanton (Iowa Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Instead, they were held by the State pursuant to the operation of the notice of garnishment and section 642.13. Furthermore, the fact the State initiated garnishment proceedings while the property was being held as seized property should not bar the garnishment from proceeding.”
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.