Local Government Organization and Employees Subject to Garnishment; Procedure

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Debtor and Creditor
4. Garnishment Proceedings
5. General Provisions
6. Local Government Organization and Employees Subject to Garnishment; Procedure

1. Money due officials or employees of a municipal corporation or county of this state or of the state government, or any department or institution thereof, as salary for services performed for or on behalf of the municipal corporation or county of this state or the state, or any department or institution thereof, shall be subject to garnishment, except that in no event shall the officials' or employees' salary for services performed for or on behalf of any municipal corporation or county of this state or the state, or any department or institution thereof, be garnisheed when the judgment serving as a basis for the issuance of the summons of garnishment arises out of the liability incurred in the scope of the officials' or employees' governmental employment while responding to an emergency. In such cases, the summons of garnishment shall be directed to such political entity and served upon the person authorized by law to draw the warrant on the treasury of the government or to issue a check for such salary due, or upon the chief administrative officer of the political subdivision, department, agency, or instrumentality; and such entity shall be required to respond to such summons in accordance with the mandate thereof and as provided by this chapter.
2. For purposes of this Code section only, the state and its political subdivisions, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities shall be deemed private persons; and jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing a summons of garnishment shall be restricted to a court located in the county in which the warrant is drawn on the treasury of the government or in which the check is issued for the salary due the official or employee of the state or its political subdivisions, departments, agencies, or instrumentalities.

(Code 1981, §18-4-26, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255.)

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions decided under former Code 1933, § 46-306 as it read after passage of former Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1 are included in the annotations under this Code section.

Subjecting National Guard to garnishment.

- National Guard is not subject to state garnishment unless garnishment is for child support or alimony. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U80-35 (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-306).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 62 et seq.

12 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Foreign Corporations, § 3.

ALR.

- Constitutionality of statute authorizing garnishment of salary or wages of public officials or employees, 22 A.L.R. 760; 123 A.L.R. 903.

Garnishment as suit within rule that state may not be sued without its consent, 114 A.L.R. 261.

ARTICLE 2 CONTINUING GARNISHMENT PROCEEDINGS

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 46-101, as it read prior to revision by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1 and former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-40 are included in the annotations for this article.

Garnishment proceedings are purely statutory and cannot be extended to cases not enumerated in statutes, and courts have no power to enlarge the remedy or hold under it property not made subject to process. Undercofler v. Brosnan, 113 Ga. App. 475, 148 S.E.2d 470 (1966) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-101).

Process of garnishment issued upon ground not authorized by statute is without authority of law, and judgment based upon it is binding upon no one. Undercofler v. Brosnan, 113 Ga. App. 475, 148 S.E.2d 470 (1966) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-101).

Use of post-judgment garnishment procedures when money judgment obtained.

- When the defendant defaulted and a money judgment was obtained against it, there was a "judgment" on the merits, even though there was no expressly adjudicated "final judgment," and the use of post-judgment garnishment procedures, rather than prejudgment garnishment procedures, to enforce the judgment provided the defendant with the process to which it was due under the federal constitution. Georgia Farm Bldgs., Inc. v. Willard, 597 F. Supp. 629 (N.D. Ga. 1984) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-40).

Download our app to see the most-to-date content.