The answer of the garnishee shall in all cases be conclusive of the truth of the facts therein stated, with reference to the garnishee's liability to the defendant unless the judgment creditor shall within twenty (20) days from the receipt of the garnishee's answer, from the date of the deposition of the garnishee, or from
receipt of the garnishee's answers to interrogatories, whichever is later, serve upon the garnishee or the garnishee's attorney of record personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, a notice in writing that the judgment creditor elects to take issue with the garnishee's answer; in which case, the issue shall stand for trial as a civil action in which the affidavit on the part of the judgment creditor shall be deemed the petition and the garnishee's answer the answer thereto. If an issue for trial shall be joined between the judgment creditor and a garnishee resident in another county other than that in which the action is pending, the court may, on motion, change the place of trial of such issue to the county of the garnishee's residence. The judgment creditor may, in all cases, move the court, upon the answer of the garnishee, and of the defendant, if the defendant shall also answer, for such judgment to which the judgment creditor shall be entitled, but any such judgment shall be no bar beyond the facts stated in the answer. R.L. 1910, § 4827. Amended by Laws 1965, c. 297, § 7; Laws 1995, c. 338, § 8, eff. Nov. 1, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case:
Mulford v. Neal, 2011 OK 20 (Okla. 2011).
Mulford v. Neal, 2011 OK 20 (Okla. 2011).
· cites it 6× “mmary judgment that 1) the named driver exclusion is authorized by Oklahoma's compulsory insurance law and enforceable, 2) even without the named driver exclusion, the 1992 GMC Sierra truck was not an owned or non-owned vehicle covered by Diann Neal's policy, and 3) plaintiffs…”
Spears v. Preble, 661 P.2d 1337 (Okla. 1983).
· cites it 2× “” Ten days later Spears requested additional time from the court to file a response to the demurrer; he was given until October 24,1978 to respond.”
Rodgers v. Higgins, 871 P.2d 398 (Okla. 1994).
“” However, 12 O.S.1991, § 1177 provides that the issues in a postjudgment garnishment “shall stand for trial as a civil action.”
Crutchfield v. Marine Power Engine Co., 2009 OK 27 (Okla. 2009).
“2001 § 1177 provides in pertinent part: The answer of the garnishee shall in all cases be conclusive of the truth of the facts therein stated, with reference to the garnishee's liability to the defendant unless the judgment creditor shall within twenty (20) days from the receipt…”
Horwitz v. Doubenskaia, 2011 OK CIV APP 115 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011).
“12 O.S.2001 § 1177. Doubenskaia filed her first garnishment affidavit on April 9, 2004.”
Gruber v. Est. of Marshall, 229 F. Supp. 3d 1245 (2017).
· cites it 3× “But, it based this conclusion on Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1177 . It provides: The answer of the garnishee shall in all cases be conclusive of the truth of the facts therein stated .”
Farmer's Exch. Bank of Antlers v. Dennis, 735 P.2d 587 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987).
“In support of this proposition, Appellant relies on 12 O.S.1981 § 1177, which states: “The answer of the garnishee shall in all cases be conclusive of the truth of the facts therein stated with reference to his liability to the Defendant and unless the Plaintiff shall within…”
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. McClarey, 287 P.2d 900 (Okla. 1955).
“■ No notice was served on the garnishee by plaintiff of election to take issue on garnishee’s answer to- interrogatories as provided by 12 O.S.1951 § 1177. ■ The trial court upon hearing and motion refused to issue''an order of garnishment and discharged the garnishee, resulting…”
Davis (W.D. Okla. 2026).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1177 ; see also Fed.”
Watkins v. Mauldin, 332 P.2d 962 (Okla. 1958).
“Prior to the trial of the issues thus made as provided in 12 O.S.1951 § 1177, Everett J. Watkins filed an application to intervene.”
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.