(Code 1981, §18-4-3, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 8, § 1/SB 255; Ga. L. 2018, p. 820, § 1/SB 194; Ga. L. 2020,p. 691, § 3/SB 443.)
Law reviews.- For article discussing due process problems with Georgia's post-judgment garnishment procedures, in light of City Fin. Co. v.Winston, 238 Ga. 10, 231 S.E.2d 45 (1976), see 13 Ga. St. B.J. 144 (1977).
JUDICIAL DECISIONSANALYSIS
General Consideration
Editor's notes.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1895, § 4708, former Code 1933, § 46-102 as it read after passage of Ga. L. 1976, p. 1608, § 1 and former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-61 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
Present obligation necessary.
- Garnishment on apprehension that some amount might become due in the future is not authorized. Kirchman v. Kirchman, 212 Ga. 488, 93 S.E.2d 685 (1956) (decided under former law).
Jurisdiction over garnishment of U.S. Marine Corps member's pay.
- Georgia trial court had jurisdiction to consider a wife's garnishment of her husband's U.S. Marine Corps pay to collect past due child support, despite the fact that the Marine Corps Finance Center (the garnishee) was located in Missouri and the husband was stationed in North Carolina. Souza v. Souza, 196 Ga. App. 59, 395 S.E.2d 298, cert. denied, 196 Ga. App. 909, 397 S.E.2d 166 (1990) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-61).
Claim for interest waived.
- Because the plaintiffs failed to timely put an insurer on notice that the plaintiffs were seeking to garnish the interest accruing on an underlying consent judgment with the insured, the plaintiffs claim for that interest was waived under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-61.(decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-61).
Garnishee holding funds of judgment debtor.
- One need not know prior to making affidavit that the garnishee holds funds or property of the judgment debtor. Fidelity Nat'l Bank v. KM Gen. Agency, Inc., 244 Ga. 753, 262 S.E.2d 67 (1979) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-102).
Name of garnishee need not be stated in affidavit for garnishment. Gainesville Feed & Poultry Co. v. Waters, 87 Ga. App. 354, 73 S.E.2d 771 (1952) (decided under former law).
Affidavits subscribed to before unauthorized persons.
- When garnishment or attachment affidavits are subscribed to before unauthorized persons, proceedings are void ab initio rendering judgments based thereon likewise void. Jenkins v. Community Loan & Inv. Corp., 120 Ga. App. 543, 171 S.E.2d 654 (1969) (decided under former law).
Absence of a judge's or clerk's signature on an affidavit for garnishment did not constitute a nonamendable defect justifying the grant of a motion to set aside a judgment. Horizon Credit Corp. v. Lanier Bank & Trust Co., 220 Ga. App. 362, 469 S.E.2d 452 (1996) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-61).
Fieri facias need not issue along with or follow judgment prior to issuance of summons of garnishment. Black v. Black, 245 Ga. 281, 264 S.E.2d 216 (1980) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-102).
Amount stated in affidavit may be less than ad damnum clause in original suit. The latter may be reduced by amendment. Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Hutchinson, 4 Ga. App. 526, 62 S.E. 97 (1908) (decided under former Civil Code 1895, § 4708).
Constitutionality
Garnishment procedure meets due process requirements.
- Constitutional due process requirements are adequately met by judicial supervision and notice to the defendant mandated by the statutory procedure for garnishments. Black v. Black, 245 Ga. 281, 264 S.E.2d 216 (1980) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 18-4-61).
Compliance of garnishment procedure with due process requirements.
- See Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294, 244 S.E.2d 820 (1978) (decided under former Code 1933, § 46-102).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 330 et seq.
C.J.S.- 38 C.J.S., Garnishment, § 158 et seq.
ALR.
- Waiver or admission by garnishee as affecting principal defendant, 64 A.L.R. 430.
Liability of garnishee to garnisher where former pays debt or releases property pending defective garnishment proceedings, 89 A.L.R. 975.
Resident or foreign corporation doing business within state as subject to garnishment because of indebtedness to nonresident who in turn is indebted to nonresident principal defendant, 116 A.L.R. 387.