Sec. 276.002. GARNISHMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ACCOUNT. (a) Notwithstanding the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, if a financial institution fails to timely file an answer to a writ of garnishment issued before or after a judgment is rendered in the case, a court may enter a default judgment against the financial institution solely as to the existence of liability and not as to the amount of damages.
(b) A financial institution against which a default judgment is entered under Subsection (a) is not deemed to have in the financial institution's possession or to have knowledge of sufficient debts, assets, or personal effects of the debtor to satisfy the debtor's obligations to the garnishor.
(c) After a default judgment is entered against a financial institution as to the existence of liability as provided by Subsection (a), the garnishor has the burden to establish the amount of actual damages proximately caused to the garnishor by the financial institution's default.
(d) The court may award to the garnishor:
(1) damages in the amount determined under Subsection (c); and
(2) for good cause shown, reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the garnishor in establishing damages under Subsection (c).
(e) Repealed by Acts 2025, 89th Leg., 2nd C.S., Ch. 7 (H.B. 16), Sec. 12.11(3), eff. December 4, 2025.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1319 (H.B. 3428), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.
Amended by:
Acts 2025, 89th Leg., 2nd C.S., Ch. 7 (H.B. 16), Sec. 12.11(3), eff. December 4, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
Invesco Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Fid. Deposit & Disc. Bank, 355 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011).
· cites it 4× “Restricted Appeal In its sole issue, Invesco argues that the trial court’s default judgment should be set aside because Fidelity presented no evidence regarding the value of any accounts held by Maloney, Invesco qualifies as a protected financial institution under Texas Finance…”
Regions Bank v. Centerpoint Apts., 290 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009).
· cites it 2× “Regions presents two issues by the present appeal: (1) the trial court erred in awarding damages in this case because such damages are proscribed by Texas Finance Code section 276.002, 1 and (2) reversal is warranted because no reporter’s record was prepared for this appeal.”
TD Bank, NA v. Weinritter St. Paul Square, LLC, No. 04-25-00547-CV (June 3, 2026).
· cites it 3× “5 To resolve TD Bank’s issue concerning whether the judgment comports with the pleading, we consider first the applicable law as to garnishment, default judgments, and pleading standards, 3 Furthermore, we do not address arguments related to damages because, even though…”
Housecanary, Inc. v. Title Source, Inc., 622 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2021).
“005; TEX. FIN. CODE § 276.002. The omission of procedures in the Act cannot be stretched into an implication that the Legislature intended the Rule’s procedures to apply.”
David Ramos v. State, No. 07-04-00008-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 23, 2004).
“Regions presents two issues by the present appeal: (1) the trial court erred in awarding damages in this case because such damages are proscribed by Texas Finance Code section 276.002, and (2) reversal is warranted because no reporter’s record was prepared for this appeal.”
Regions Bank v. Centerpoint Apts., No. 07-08-00021-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 4, 2009).
“Regions presents two issues by the present appeal: (1) the trial court erred in awarding damages in this case because such damages are proscribed by Texas Finance Code section 276.002, and (2) reversal is warranted because no reporter’s record was prepared for this appeal.”
Regions Bank v. Centerpoint Apts., No. 07-08-00021-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 4, 2009).
“Regions presents two issues by the present appeal: (1) the trial court erred in awarding damages in this case because such damages are proscribed by Texas Finance Code section 276.002, (footnote: 1) and (2) reversal is warranted because no reporter’s record was prepared for this…”
Tex. Fin. Code § 276.002(a): 1 case
TD Bank, NA v. Weinritter St. Paul Square, LLC, No. 04-25-00547-CV (June 3, 2026).
“5 To resolve TD Bank’s issue concerning whether the judgment comports with the pleading, we consider first the applicable law as to garnishment, default judgments, and pleading standards, 3 Furthermore, we do not address arguments related to damages because, even though…”
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.