§
Subdivision 1.Judgment upon failure to disclose.
If a garnishee fails to serve a disclosure as required in this chapter, the court may render judgment against the garnishee, upon motion by the creditor, for an amount not exceeding 110 percent of the amount claimed in the garnishment summons. The motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the facts and shall be served upon both the debtor and the garnishee. The court upon good cause shown may remove the default and permit the garnishee to disclose on just terms.
§
Subd. 2.Limitation of liability.
Judgment against a garnishee shall be rendered, if at all, for the amount due to the debtor, or as much as may be necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim against the debtor, with costs taxed and allowed in the proceeding against the garnishee but not to exceed 110 percent of the amount claimed in the garnishment summons. This judgment discharges the garnishee from all claims of all parties named in the process in and to the property or money paid, delivered, or accounted for by the garnishee by force of the judgment.
Notes of Decisions
Lang v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 612 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “On March 4, 2008, after the SSA had still failed to comply with the garnishment summons by providing Lang with a written disclosure in accordance with state law, Lang served the SSA with a notice of motion and motion indicating she would be asking the state court for a default…”
Ceridian Corp. v. SCSC Corp., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D. Minnesota 1999).
· cites it 8× “” Section 571.82, subd. 1 also speaks of a “disclosure” separately from answers to interrogatories.”
Murdoff v. Murdoff, 517 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 1994).
“1989); Minn.Stat. § 571.82(1) (formerly Minn.Stat.”
Geraldine Lang v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (8th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “On March 4, 2008, after the SSA had still failed to comply with the garnishment summons by providing Lang with a written disclosure in accordance with state law, Lang served the SSA with a notice of motion and motion indicating she would be asking the state court for a default…”
— Minn. Stat. § 571.82(1) — 1 case
Murdoff v. Murdoff, 517 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 1994).
“1989); Minn.Stat. § 571.82(1) (formerly Minn.Stat.”
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.