Lott v. Arrington & Hollowell PC

The trial court had authority to change its interlocutory garnishment order and release excess funds that were improperly deposited into the court registry after the term of court in which the garnishment order was entered.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A debtor appealed a $55,000 judgment against him but failed to pay appeal-preparation costs, and the appeal did not proceed. Six years later, the judgment creditor sought to garnish over $109,000 held by the debtor in a bank account. The debtor traversed the garnishment, claiming i no garnishment could proceed since the appeal was never dismissed, ii the lack of any court order for five years dismissed the underlying judgment, and iii the garnishment could only attach to approximately $89,000 a point conceded by the creditor. The garnishment court entered a judgment that denied the entire traverse if the original court dismissed the aging appeal, and that granted the entire traverse if the court did not. When the appeal was later dismissed, the entire traverse stood denied. We agree with the garnishment court that portions of the traverse were properly denied, but hold that the garnishment court should have reduced the admittedly-excessive interest amount from the funds subject to garnishment.

In November 1994, Arrington & Hollowell a law firm obtained from the State Court of Fulton County a judgment against Clarence Lott for an unpaid bill. The judgment consisted of $42,386.18 in principal, $4,263.62 in attorney fees, and $8,901.06 in prejudgment interest. A writ of fi. fa. immediately issued, which included another $88 in court costs. In December 1994, Lott filed a notice of appeal, and two months later the court clerk sent Lott a bill for $422.90, which represented the estimated cost of preparing the record for appeal. Lott did not pay this bill, so the clerk returned the file in May 1995. The appeal did not proceed.

Lott v. Arrington & Hollowell PC

The trial court had authority to change its interlocutory garnishment order and release excess funds that were improperly deposited into the court registry after the term of court in which the garnishment order was entered.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report