Carrier 411 Servs. Inc. v. Insight Tech. Inc.

The transfer of funds from the defendant to entities its employee controlled after the garnishment period ended was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that the defendant and its employee colluded to fraudulently suspend payments until the garnishment period expired in an attempt to defeat the garnishment action.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Insight Technology, Inc. obtained a $1.4 million judgment against Darren Brewer, and when Brewer failed to satisfy the judgment, Insight Technology filed a garnishment action against Carrier411 Services, Inc. “Carrier411″. Carrier411 answered the garnishment summons and refused to pay the requested amount, claiming that Brewer was no longer an employee of Carrier411 and it was not holding any funds belonging to him. Insight Technology subsequently filed a traverse to Carrier411′s answer. Carrier411 moved to dismiss the action on the ground that Insight Technology did not have the authority to maintain the action since it had not received a certificate of authority under OCGA § 14-2-1502 a. Following the hearing, the trial court denied Carrier411′s motion to dismiss and granted Insight Technology’s traverse, entering judgment against Carrier411 in the principal sum of $736,139.60. Carrier411 appeals from those rulings, contending that the trial court erred in 1 denying its motion to dismiss; 2 allowing the garnishment action to “reverse-pierce” an individual in order to reach the assets of a corporation; and 3 expanding the garnishment proceeding to consider claims of fraud and collusion, and granting Insight Technology’s traverse without sufficient proof to support the action. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

In a garnishment proceeding, “the question of ownership of the funds is one of fact for the trial court, as fact finder, to decide.” Citation and punctuation omitted. A.M. Buckler & Assoc., Inc. v. Sanders, 305 Ga. App. 704, 706 700 SE2d 701 2010. “On appeal of the judgment of a trial judge sitting without a jury, a judgment will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to sustain it.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Id.

Carrier 411 Servs. Inc. v. Insight Tech. Inc.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report