A.     Introduction

The Defendant whose wages are being garnished from his employer, or whose bank account balance is being garnished from his financial institution, may wish to dispute the Plaintiff’s right to seize these funds, dispute the validity of the judgment, or dispute the amount which the Plaintiff claims it is still due.

The Defendant has a right to file a “Traverse of Defendant” to alert the Court and the Plaintiff as to the dispute.[i]  A statutory form Traverse of Defendant is provided at O.C.G.A. § 18-4-66(3), but its use is not mandatory.

The Court will then hold a hearing to resolve the dispute.  At the hearing, the Defendant will be required to show why the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover.  This Chapter traces both how to file a Traverse of Defendant, as well as some of reasons that a Plaintiff may not be entitled to recover some or all of the Defendant’s property.

B.     A Company Must Be Represented By a Lawyer to File a Traverse

As described in Chapter 2, if the Defendant is a company, then it will need a lawyer to file a Traverse of Defendant.

C.     How to File the Traverse

To file a Traverse of Defendant, follow these steps:

(1)  Call the Clerk’s office,[1] and:

  1. Ask if there is any fee to file a Traverse of Defendant,
  2. Ask what form of payment the Clerk accepts (e.g. check, cash, money order), and to whom to make any check payable,
  3. Confirm the Clerk’s address.

(2)  Obtain the necessary payment for any filing fee (e.g. check or money order).

(3)  Complete Form 16-2 Traverse of Defendant and the included Certificate of Service.

(4)  Complete the Form 16-3 Cover Letter to the Clerk.

(5)  Call the Clerk of Court to see if any fee is required to file the Traverse

(6)  Deliver to the Clerk’s office:

  1. The cover letter
  2. The check or other payment of any filing fee
  3. The Traverse of Defendant

(7)  Mail a service copy of the Traverse of Defendant to the Plaintiff, Defendant, and any Claimant

D.    Challenges Which Defendant May Make in Traverse

1.     Traverse of Postjudgment Garnishment

If the garnishment is based upon a judgment, the Defendant may challenge (1) the existence of the judgment, (2) the amount claimed due, or (3) “any other matter in bar of the judgment.”[ii]

However, if the judgment exists, but the Defendant claims that the judgment is not valid, then the validity cannot generally be challenged in the garnishment case, but must instead be challenged in the court which rendered the judgment under the procedures in the Title 9, Chapter 11 of the Georgia Code.[iii]  If the Defendant does challenge the underlying judgment in the Court which issued it, the judge of the garnishment court may stay the garnishment and release the garnishee until the validity of the judgment has been determined.[iv]

2.     Traverse of Prejudgment Garnishment

If the summons of garnishment issued before a judgment was issued, then the Defendant may traverse the Plaintiff’s Affidavit “stating that the affidavit is untrue or legally insufficient.”[v]  This procedure is covered in more detail in Chapter 7, Section H.

E.     Traverse Based Upon Plaintiff’s Violation of Garnishment Procedure

A Defendant may traverse the garnishment on the basis that the Plaintiff has violated the required garnishment procedures.

For example, a Defendant may traverse on the basis of insufficient notice of the garnishment.  When the Plaintiff decides to serve the Defendant by mail, this notice must be given within three business days of the service of the summons of garnishment on the Garnishee.[vi]  This rule is strictly construed, and a traverse should be sustained if the notice is not sent within these three days, as the Georgia Supreme Court has rejected a proposed rule that a Plaintiff could “substantially comply” by sending the notice shortly after the three day deadline.[vii]

F.      Traverse Based Upon Defense That the Garnished Property Has Been Exempted From Execution

In Georgia, a debtor is entitled to exempt from legal process a limited amount of real or personal property.  The procedure for doing so is set forth in O.C.G.A. § 44-13-1 et seq.  If the property has been exempted under this procedure, then it cannot be garnished because “[n]o court or ministerial officer in this state shall ever have jurisdiction or authority to enforce any judgment, execution, or decree against property set apart under this Code section”.[viii]

This publication does not provide forms to seek exemption of property.  Generally speaking, however, the judgment debtor files a Petition to the judge of the probate county in which he resides, listing out the property sought to be exempted, and including a list of his creditors and their mailing addresses.[ix]  The debtor shall also list all of his other money and property.[x]  The judge then orders that a notice be published in the legal advertisements.[xi]  The applicant must also give written notice to his creditors.[xii]  The creditors may object to the debtor’s schedule of property.[xiii]  The court may appoint appraisers to resolve any objections to the debtor’s valuation of property.[xiv] Cash cannot generally be exempted, but it may be spent on personal property which is then exempted.[xv]

If some of your exempted property is being garnished, then you may file a traverse on this basis.

G.     Traverse Based Upon Dispute as to the Amount of the Judgment

When the Plaintiff files the Affidavit of Garnishment, the Plaintiff does not generally ‘show their math’ to support the amount claimed due.  It is not uncommon for the Plaintiff and Defendant to dispute the amount due, especially when the Defendant does not know how the Plaintiff came to calculate the amount due.  The following are some categories of disputes regarding the amount of the Judgment:

(1)  Application of Payments. The Defendant may claim that some or all of the debt was previously retired through prior payments, levies, garnishments, or other methods, and that the Plaintiff is not ‘giving credit’ for these payments.

(2)  Calculation of Interest. The Plaintiff often claims that interest is accruing on the judgment.  The judgment itself may set forth the applicable interest rate.  If not, then postjudgment interest may automatically accrue based upon the laws of the jurisdiction in which the judgment was rendered.  For example, in Georgia postjudgment interest accrues as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 7-4-2 and O.C.G.A. § 7-4-12.

(3)  Setoff.  A Defendant may claim that it may ‘set off’ some amounts it claims that it is owed by the Plaintiff, to reduce the amount of the Judgment which is collectable.  It is recommended that a lawyer be consulted regarding the circumstances in which a setoff is available.

H.    Traverse Based Upon Dispute As to the Validity of the Judgment

1.     Attacks Which May Be Made Within Garnishment Action

The validity of a judgment may be attacked for many reasons.  It is beyond the scope of this publication to chronicle each available reasons and method of attack.

Very few judgments may be attacked directly from within the garnishment case.  O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65(a) only allows the Defendant to challenge the existence of the judgment or the amount claimed due within the garnishment case.  Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(a) provides that “[a] judgment void on its face may be attacked in any court by any person.”  As set forth more fully below, other attacks must generally be made in the court which rendered the verdict.

However, the following are several attacks upon a judgment which might be made within the garnishment action itself:[2]

(1)  The judgment does not exist, or does not exist as to this Defendant

The most basic challenge to a judgment goes to its very existence.  If a Defendant is unaware of any judgment having been entered against him, then he may seek to compel the Plaintiff to prove the existence of the judgment.  Of course, the Defendant may learn to his chagrin that a judgment by default or otherwise has been entered against him, without him so knowing.

A similar challenge would be that the judgment was not entered against this Defendant.  For example, a Plaintiff may obtain a judgment against ABC Incorporated, but then mistakenly garnish the property of a different company: ABC, LLC.  Similarly, a Plaintiff may have a judgment against “Joseph Smith”, but the Defendant claims that he is a different Joseph Smith than the judgment debtor.  These are both challenges to the existence of a judgment in favor of this Plaintiff against this Defendant.

(2)  Standing: This Plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the judgment

If the garnishment Plaintiff is not the same person or entity in whose favor the judgment was entered, then the Defendant may challenge whether the garnishment Plaintiff has ‘standing’ to enforce the judgment.  The Plaintiff will be required to show why it has authority to enforce the judgment against the Defendant.  Was the judgment assigned to the Plaintiff?  Did the Plaintiff acquire or merge with the judgment creditor?

(3)  The judgment was discharged in bankruptcy

If the Defendant has obtained a discharge in bankruptcy, then a judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff before the discharge may no longer be enforceable if the Defendant timely raises the defense of the discharge.

Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a discharge in bankruptcy may discharge a debtor from certain debts.[xvi]  However, the Georgia courts have ruled that “[a] discharge in bankruptcy in nowise extinguishes a debt; it merely makes collection of it unenforceable when the debtor desires to take advantage thereof; being a personal defense it may be insisted on or waived at the election of the bankrupt.”[xvii]

Therefore, to take advantage of the discharge in bankruptcy, the Defendant must raise the defense before the garnishment court.  As evidence, the Defendant should tender into evidence a certified copy of the discharge in bankruptcy.

A resolution of this defense is not always simple, and it can implicate potentially complicated legal and evidentiary issues.

(4)  The judgment is unenforceable because it is not a Georgia judgment.

Sometimes, the Plaintiff is attempting to enforce a judgment which was not entered by a Georgia court, such as a judgment entered in another state or by a federal court.  However, a Georgia court generally is without subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment unless the judgment has been “domesticated” in Georgia.[xviii]

Foreign judgments may be domesticated by several methods including:

  • The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law. O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130 et. seq.
  • Georgia Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act. O.C.G.A. § 9-12-110 et. seq.
  • Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. O.C.G.A. § 19-9-40 et seq.
  • Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). O.C.G.A. 19-11-40 et seq.

If the foreign judgment has not been domesticated in Georgia, then the Defendant may challenge its enforceability.

(5)  The judgment is unenforceable because it is dormant.

Even if a judgment was valid when entered, it may become dormant and unenforceable through the passage of time.

Seven Year Period For Georgia Judgments and Foreign Judgments Filed Under the UEFJA. A judgment entered in a Georgia court may generally be enforced for seven years, unless it is properly renewed.[xix]  Note that this rule does “not apply to judgments or orders for child support or spousal support.”[xx]  However, it does apply to “judgments filed under” the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law.[xxi]

Five Year Period for Other Foreign Judgments.  “All actions upon judgments obtained outside this state, except judgments for child support or spousal support, or both, shall be brought within five years after such judgments have been obtained.”[xxii]  However, this rule does not apply to judgments domesticated under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law.

If the judgment was entered more than five or seven years ago, then the Defendant should investigate whether it is dormant and unenforceable, and if it is dormant, may file a traverse on this basis.

(6)  The judgment is not enforceable because it is not “final”.

Occasionally, a Georgia court will issue an order during a case which is “interlocutory” and does not resolve of all of the issues in the case.

Even if a court’s judgment states that it is “final”, if there are remaining unresolved issues, and the court did not follow the procedures in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-54(b), then the judgment is generally not ‘final’ and is not yet enforceable as a judgment.

(7)  The judgment is not enforceable because it was not “entered.”

“[N]o judgment shall be effective for any purpose until the entry of the same” as provided in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-58(b), which requires that a judgment is “entered” when it has been signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk.  Thus, if the purported judgment was not signed by the judge, or was not filed with the clerk, then it is likely that it is likely unenforceable.  For example, in one case,[xxiii] the Court of Appeals held that an “order signed on May 14 was a nullity because it was not filed when the case was still lawfully pending.”

(8)  A civil case disposition form was not filed in the prior court.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-58(b) provides in part as follows:

The filing with the clerk of a judgment, signed by the judge, with the fully completed civil case disposition form constitutes the entry of the judgment, and, unless the court otherwise directs, no judgment shall be effective for any purpose until the entry of the same, as provided in this subsection.

In the author’s experience, some judges have accepted an argument that a judgment is not effective to support a garnishment until the civil case disposition form has been filed with the prior court.

To prove that no such form was filed with the court which issued the judgment, consider obtaining a certified copy of the entire file from the issuing court, or obtaining a sworn statement from the Clerk of the issuing court that she has searched the records and file in the case, and that it appears that no civil case disposition form was filed.

(9)  The face of the judgment reveals that the issuing court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

“Judgments rendered by courts without jurisdiction are void.”[xxiv]  Therefore, a Defendant may wish to scrutinize whether the court which rendered the judgment had jurisdiction to enter such a judgment in the first place.  If the rendering court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, then the judgment may arguably be void on its face.  However, sometimes a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is not revealed from the face of the judgment, and therefore the attack may be required in the rendering court, and (if necessary) in an appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside the judgment.

(10)       The judgment is not enforceable because it is being appealed.

Just because a judgment is being appealed, this does not necessarily mean that it is not currently enforceable.  But, if the appealing defendant has followed the correct procedures to obtain “supersedeas,” then it may be that the judgment is not currently enforceable.

O.C.G.A. § 5-6-46 requires a party who is appealing to a higher court (the ‘appellant’) to take two acts to obtain supersedeas (essentially a ‘suspension’) of a judgment:

(i) file a Notice of Appeal, and

(ii) pay the costs of the action.

Until the appellant does both of these things, then the judgment remains enforceable despite the pendency of the appeal.

Even if an appellant initially obtains supersedeas, the trial court may require the appellant to post a bond to maintain the supersedeas and prevent enforcement of the judgment during the appeal.[xxv]  If the appellant does not post the bond, then supersedeas is lost.

However, if the Defendant can show that it has obtained supersedeas, and that it has not been lost, then the court where the garnishment is pending should not enforce the judgment during the appeal.

(11)       The judgment is not enforceable because a motion for new trial or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was filed.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-62(b) provides that supersedeas may also be obtained when a post-trial motion is filed:

(b) Stay on motion for new trial or for judgment. The filing of a motion for a new trial or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict shall act as supersedeas unless otherwise ordered by the court; but the court may condition supersedeas upon the giving of bond with good security in such amounts as the court may order.

Therefore, if the Defendant can show that it has obtained supersedeas by filing a post-trial motion, and that it complied with bond requirements (if any), then the magistrate court should not enforce the judgment while the motion is pending.

(12)       The garnishment is invalid because the amounts claimed due have been paid.

If the debt has been paid (even if paid after the garnishment was initiated) then the garnishment may be traversed on this basis.[3]

(13)       The garnishment should be dismissed because it was filed within ten days after the judgment was entered.

The party against whom a judgment has been entered generally the right to be free from execution and from proceedings for enforcement of the judgment in Georgia for a period of ten days in order to determine his future course of action.  This affords the Defendant a limited window to consider whether to seek an appeal, make a motion for new trial, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or take another action.  This “quiet period” is contained within O.C.G.A. § 9-11-62(a) which provides as follows:

(a) Stay upon entry of judgment. No execution shall issue upon a judgment nor shall proceedings be taken for its enforcement until the expiration of ten days after its entry, except that, in the case of a default judgment, execution may issue and enforcement proceedings may be taken at any time after entry of judgment and except that, in any case in which both the plaintiff or plaintiffs and the defendant or defendants agree, in writing, and file a copy of such agreement with the clerk of the court, execution may issue and enforcement proceedings may be taken at any time after entry of judgment. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or in a receivership action shall not be stayed during the period after its entry and until an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal. Subsection (c) of this Code section governs the suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting of an injunction during the pendency of an appeal.

The Court of Appeals has held that the mandate of this law is “clear and unequivocal” and that a “garnishment court had no discretion to exercise in the matter”.[xxvi] Therefore, if a garnishment is filed within the ten day period, a Defendant’s traverse should be sustained, and the garnishment action dismissed.[xxvii]

2.     Need to Stay Garnishment and Attack Validity in Court of Rendition

Most attacks upon the validity of a judgment must be made in the court which rendered the judgment.  The garnishment statutes provide in O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65(b) that “[t]he validity of the judgment upon which a garnishment is based may only be challenged in accordance with Chapter 11 of Title 9; and no such challenge shall be entertained in the garnishment case.”

The procedures referenced are contained in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(b) which provides that “[j]udgments may be attacked by motion only in the court of rendition.”  This rule is sound, because the Court which rendered the judgment is probably most familiar with the facts of the case, has the record of the case, and is in the best position to evaluate whether the judgment is valid.

Therefore, unless the Defendant is challenging the “existence” of the judgment, or that the judgment is “void on its face”, the Defendant must take two actions if it seeks to attack the validity of the judgment upon which a garnishment is based:

(1) Make a direct attack upon the judgment in the court which rendered the judgment, by either making a motion for new trial, or a motion to set aside the judgment.

(2) Make a motion in the garnishment case to stay the action, and release the garnishee, while the direct attack is pending in the sister court.

The garnishment statutes anticipate this procedure in O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65(b) which provides in part:

However, where the court finds that the defendant has attacked the validity of the judgment upon which the garnishment is based in an appropriate forum, the judge may order the garnishment released and stayed until the validity of the judgment has been determined in such forum.

Until the Defendant has successfully attacked the judgment, however, the Defendant is bound by it.  O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40 provides as much:

A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside.

However, the following are several attacks upon a judgment which might be made within the court which rendered the judgment:

(1)  The prior court did not have personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(d)(1) provides that “[a] motion to set aside may be brought to set aside a judgment based upon: …(1) Lack of jurisdiction over the person …”.

Challenges to personal jurisdiction can include challenges to that Court’s right to ever enter a judgment against the Defendant.  For example, an Alaska resident who has never stepped foot in Georgia, owned property in Georgia, or even mailed a letter to anyone in Georgia, might rightly challenge how a Georgia court could possibly enter a money judgment against the Alaska resident.

Also, if the Defendant claims that he was never properly served with a complaint or summons in the prior action which led to the judgment, then the Defendant is challenging whether the prior court obtained jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(f) provides that “[a] judgment void because of lack of jurisdiction of the person or subject matter may be attacked at any time.”

(2)  The prior court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(d)(1) provides that “[a] motion to set aside may be brought to set aside a judgment based upon: …(1) Lack of jurisdiction over … the subject matter”.

For example, in Georgia only a Superior Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a divorce case.  Therefore, if a Magistrate Court enters a judgment which purports to divorce a couple, and awards alimony to the wife, the husband may challenge the alimony judgment on the basis that the Magistrate Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in the first place.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(f) provides that “[a] judgment void because of lack of jurisdiction of the … subject matter may be attacked at any time.”

(3)  The judgment was obtained by fraud, accident or mistake

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(d)(2) provides that “[a] motion to set aside may be brought to set aside a judgment based upon: …(2) Fraud, accident, or mistake or the acts of the adverse party unmixed with the negligence or fault of the movant.”

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(f) provides that, generally, “all motions to set aside judgments shall be brought within three years from entry of the judgment complained of.”

(4)  A nonamendable defect

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(d)(3) provides that “[a] motion to set aside may be brought to set aside a judgment based upon: …(3) A nonamendable defect which appears upon the face of the record or pleadings. Under this paragraph, it is not sufficient that the complaint or other pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but the pleadings must affirmatively show no claim in fact existed.”

“The alleged nonamendable defect must be apparent from the face of the record in the absence of the additional evidence.”[xxviii]  For example, when a Court granted a tax exemption under a law which had been abolished, then the judgment was for a non-existent legal claim, because no claim for a tax exemption existed, nor was it permissible.[xxix]

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(f) provides that, generally, “all motions to set aside judgments shall be brought within three years from entry of the judgment complained of.”

(5)  Clerical Mistakes

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(g) permits a court “at any time” to correct clerical mistakes in judgments which arise “from oversight or omission.”  Thus, if a judgment contains an apparent mistake, this should be brought to the attention of the Court which entered the judgment, and a correction sought.

I.       Traverse Based upon Bond Filed In Another Garnishment

A traverse of a garnishment action may be filed based upon the Defendant’s posting of a bond in a different garnishment action which was filed by the same Plaintiff against the Defendant.  The grounds of this traverse would be that the Plaintiff has no right to bring the second garnishment action under O.C.G.A. § 18-4-81 which provides: “If the defendant files a bond, no further garnishment process may be filed in any court by the plaintiff against the defendant until the issues raised by the defendant’s pleadings are decided.”

J.       Invalid Defenses

1.     Lack of Fi.Fa.

Several defenses have been previously rejected by Georgia appellate courts.  It is no defense to a garnishment that the Plaintiff has not yet obtained a writ of fieri facias (fi.fa.).[xxx]

2.     Due Process Violation

The Georgia Supreme Court has held that Georgia’s garnishment statutes adequately meet constitutional due process requirements.[xxxi]

3.     Garnishment is Not “Conversion”

When assets are frozen by operation of the garnishment statute, this does not convert the assets to the plaintiff’s use, and does not constitute conversion.[xxxii]

K.    Effect of Defendant’s Traverse on Garnishee

The mere filing of a Traverse by the Defendant does not automatically relieve the Garnishee of its obligation to file a Garnishee Answer, or of its obligation to deliver the garnished money or property to the court.[xxxiii]

L.      Defendant’s Bond to Release Garnishee and Stop Further Garnishments by the Plaintiff

In addition to filing a Traverse, the Defendant has the option to (but is not required to) file in the Clerk of Court’s office a bond with good security, in favor of the Plaintiff, which is conditioned for the payment of any judgment that may be entered in the proceeding.[xxxiv]  The bond is subject to approval by the Clerk of Court.[xxxv]

If the Clerk approves the bond, then the Clerk issues a Release of Garnishment.[xxxvi]  A statutory form Release of Garnishment is provided at O.C.G.A. § 18-4-66(6), but its use is not mandatory.  Included with these materials is Form 21-6 Release of Garnishment.  The Release has the effect of relieving the Garnishee of the obligation of filing an Answer, and permits the Garnishee to deliver the Defendant’s money or property to the Defendant instead of to the Court.[xxxvii]

The bond will not only relieve the Garnishee in this case, but will prevent the Plaintiff from filing any other garnishment proceedings against the Defendant, until the Defendant’s traverse in this case are resolved.[xxxviii]

If the Plaintiff prevails in the garnishment proceeding, then the Court enters a judgment upon the bond against the principal and securities on the bond.[xxxix]

M.   Attend Trial

If the Defendant files a traverse, and applies for a hearing, the judge “shall order a hearing to be held not more than ten days from the date the traverse is filed.”[xl]  Unless waived, this hearing is mandatory.[xli]  Additionally, after the traverse is filed, “no further summons of garnishment may issue nor may any money or other property delivered to the court as subject to garnishment be disbursed until the hearing shall be held.”[xlii]

If other claims have been filed, then the parties may introduce evidence to establish their interests, and then the Court will resolve the priority of the competing parties’ interest in the Defendant’s property, and distribute the property accordingly.[xliii]

[1] –         To find a Magistrate Court clerk, visit: http://goo.gl/NzOTT

–           To find a State Court clerk, visit: http://goo.gl/XCGX5

–           To find a Superior Court clerk, visit http://goo.gl/kF15v

[2] Depending upon the particular facts and law in a given case, a court may require that one or more of these attacks may be made in the court which rendered the judgment, and not in the garnishment case.

[3] See Stoker v. Severin, 292 Ga. App. 870, 873, 665 S.E.2d 913, 917 (2008) (defendant had paid back child support).

[i] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65.

[ii] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65(a).

[iii] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65(b).

[iv] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-65(b).

[v] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-45.

[vi] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-64(a)(7).

[vii] Cook v. NC Two, L.P., 289 Ga. 462, 465, 712 S.E.2d 831, 834 (2011) (declining to extend rule of “substantial compliance” to notice requirements in O.C.G.A. § 18:4:64, holding that trial court should have sustained traverse when Plaintiff did not mail notice of garnishment to Defendant until eight business days after service of the summons on the Garnishee).

[viii] O.C.G.A. § 44-13-1.

[ix] O.C.G.A. § 44-13-4.

[x] O.C.G.A. § 44-13-6.

[xi] O.C.G.A. § 44-13-7.

[xii] O.C.G.A. § 44-13-8.

[xiii] O.C.G.A. § 44-13-12.

[xiv] O.C.G.A. § 44-13-13.

[xv] O.C.G.A. § 44-13-15.

[xvi] See, e.g. 11 USC § 727(b) (for Chapter 7); 11 USC § 1328 (for Chapter 13).

[xvii] Hickman v. Livingston, 109 Ga. App. 812 (1964).

[xviii] See Nationsbank, N.A. v. Gibbons, 226 Ga. App. 610 (1997) (“Until a foreign judgment is domesticated in Georgia, it is not the judgment of a court ‘of this state.’ Although it is entitled to full faith and credit, Georgia legal process may not be used to enforce it. That right is acquired by domestication, which makes the foreign judgment a judgment of this state as well. … Because the foreign judgment cannot be enforced until it is domesticated, it follows that it cannot acquire position relative to other liens.”).

[xix] O.C.G.A. § 9-12-60 to 61.

[xx] O.C.G.A. § 9-12-60(d).

[xxi] Aetna Ins. Co. v. Williams, 237 Ga.App. 881, 883(1), 517 S.E.2d 109 (1999).

[xxii] O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20.

[xxiii] Andrew L. Parks, Inc. v. Suntrust Bank, West Georgia, N.A., 248 Ga. App. 846 (2001).

[xxiv] Andrew L. Parks, Inc. v. Suntrust Bank, West Georgia, N.A., 248 Ga. App. 846 (2001) (citing Williams v. Fuller, 244 Ga. 846, 848 (1979)).

[xxv] O.C.G.A. § 5-6-46.

[xxvi] Tate v. Burns, 172 Ga.App. 688 (1984).

[xxvii] Id.

[xxviii] Capital Assoc. v. Keoho, 173 Ga. App. 627, 628 (1985).

[xxix] Wasden v. Rusco Industries, Inc., 233 Ga. 439 (1975).

[xxx] Black v. Black, 245 Ga. 281, 282, 264 S.E.2d 216, 217 (1980) (“We find nothing in the law which requires a fi. fa. to issue along with or follow the judgment prior to the issuance of a summons of garnishment.”).

[xxxi] Id. (citing Easterwood v. LeBlanc, 240 Ga. 61, 62, 239 S.E.2d 383 (1977); Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294, 244 S.E.2d 820 (1978)).

[xxxii] ISP Alliance, Inc. v. Physiotherapy Associates, 238 Ga. App. 436, 437, 519 S.E.2d 241, 242 (1999) (“As a matter of law, no conversion occurred in this case. The freezing of ISP’s assets was precipitated by operation of the garnishment statute, not Physiotherapy Associates’ own doing. As such, Physiotherapy Associates never converted ISP’s funds to its own use. Rather, the funds were automatically frozen by operation of law until such time that a court could determine whether ISP truly owed the funds to Physiotherapy Associates.”).

[xxxiii] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-81.

[xxxiv] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-81.

[xxxv] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-81.

[xxxvi] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-81.

[xxxvii] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-80.

[xxxviii] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-81.

[xxxix] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-81.

[xl] See O.C.G.A. § 18-4-93.

[xli] A.M. Buckler & Associates, Inc. v. Sanders, 305 Ga. App. 704, 705, 700 S.E.2d 701, 703 (2010) (“If a defendant or other claimant files a traverse or adverse claim in a garnishment proceeding, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the rights of the parties to the money or other property at issue.”).

[xlii] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-93.

[xliii] O.C.G.A. § 18-4-94(b).