Title: McCreery v. McCreery

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

210 Kan. 99 (1972)
499 P.2d 1118
BETTY J. McCREERY, Appellee,
v.
WAYNE McCREERY, a/k/a KERMIT W. McCREERY, and CURRAN & CO. (Garnishee), Appellant.
No. 46,426

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 19, 1972.
Bruce W. Kent, of Ryan & Kent, of Norton, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
William H. Stowell, of Phillipsburg, argued the cause, and Doris D. Stowell, also of Phillipsburg, was with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
OWSLEY, J.:
This is an action to enforce payment of an alimony and child support judgment. The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant garnishee by reason of its failure to file an answer and its failure to withhold payment of wages to defendant, contrary to the order of garnishment. The defendant garnishee appeals.
In March of 1969, in connection with a divorce decree, judgment was entered for alimony and child support against the defendant McCreery. In November of 1970 a garnishment order with the statutory form of answer was served on the garnishee Curran & Co. through its resident agent in Kansas. Using the statutory form, the garnishee filed its answer in the following manner:
*100 "ANSWER OF GARNISHEE
"(1) (Money or Indebtedness Due) It holds money or is indebted to said Defendant, as of the date of this Answer, in the following manner and amounts, to-wit: None  __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________
"(2) (Personal Property in Possession) It has possession of personal property, goods, chattels, stocks, rights, credits, or effects of said Defendant, as of the date of this Answer, described and having an estimated value as follows to-wit: None  __________________________________________________________________________
"(3) (To be answered if the relationship between the Garnishee and the Defendant is an employment relationship.)
(d) Amounts required by law to be withheld
(Deduct only those items listed above)
(c) minus (d)
"I will hold the above described moneys or other items in my possession until the further order of the Court.
"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of December, 1970. My commission expires: August 7, 1974.
"INSTRUCTIONS TO GARNISHEE:
Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for judgment alleging the garnishee had failed to file an answer in the manner specified in the statute and had failed to withhold payment of the indebtedness. On February 5, 1971, the garnishee filed a motion for leave to file further answer in event its answer was found insufficient and alleged its failure to file a proper answer was the result of excusable neglect. The court, in its journal entry of February 11, 1971, made the following finding:
K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 60-718 provides that: "Within twenty (20) days after service upon him of the order of garnishment the garnishee *102 shall file his verified answer thereto with the clerk of the court stating the facts with respect to the demands of the order...." The statute also provides that: "... If the garnishee fails to answer within the time and manner herein specified, the court may grant judgment against garnishee for the amount of the plaintiff's judgment or claim against the defendant, but if the claim of the plaintiff has not been reduced to judgment, the liability of the garnishee shall be limited to the judgment ultimately rendered against the defendant: ..."
If the document filed by the garnishee constituted an "answer" within the meaning of the statute the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment. We have had no occasion to consider what is encompassed by an "answer" within the contemplation of this statute.
It is noted that the garnishee crossed out that provision of the statutory form which required it to state that no money, etc., had been delivered to defendant since the garnishment order was received. The statement at the bottom of the answer of the garnishee was to the effect that the defendant was working in the State of Utah, was a resident of the State of Utah, and was paid in the State of Utah; and that the garnishee, on advice of counsel, could not withhold wages without an order of the Utah court. It is apparent that the garnishee was attempting to explain why a portion of the statutory form was deleted.
We do not propose to answer the legal question raised by the answer of the garnishee; however, we do not deny the right of the garnishee to raise this issue. The statutory form was not suitable for this purpose. In order to raise the issue the defendant had to modify the form since the crossed out portion provided no alternative.
The information required in the statutory form should be provided, but we feel the modification of the form is justified when a legitimate issue cannot otherwise be properly presented to the court. In fact, the deleted portion of the form had no greater weight than its counterpart in the order of garnishment. The garnishee was under the same obligation to the plaintiff, regardless of whether the deleted portion was in the answer or was not in the answer.
Based on this reasoning, we conclude the answer filed by the garnishee was not defective and the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
We can see justification for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff *103 when the garnishee completely ignores the garnishment order as occurred in Buzbee v. Allen County State Bank, 191 Kan. 112, 379 P.2d 250. We can see no justification for employing the harsh results of substituting one debtor for another after a garnishee has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. In this situation, even though a garnishee fails to supply information of a material nature to the interests of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has remedies and the court has jurisdiction to enforce those remedies. We are referring to an order of the court directing garnishee to furnish the information, a direct request for admissions, the submission of written interrogatories, or the taking of oral depositions. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has not been denied any rights that did not exist at the time the order of garnishment was issued.
In Jones v. Main, 196 Kan. 91, 410 P.2d 303, the defendant garnishee made a note on the garnishee's summons that he had no money due the principal defendant and filed it with the clerk. We held that this constituted an appearance which entitled the garnishee to a three-day written notice under K.S.A. 60-255 (a) before a default judgment could be entered against the garnishee. The following language of the opinion is pertinent:
The answer of the garnishee in the instant case was more extensive in content than the limited statement in Jones. In view of this we are fully justified in concluding an appearance was made by the garnishee here.
In the case of Durfee Mineral Co. v. City Nat. Bank of Temple, (1922 Tex. Civ. App.), 236 S.W. 516, the court considered the issue of whether an insufficient answer conferred jurisdiction on the court and stated:
See also, 6 Am.Jur.2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 350, p. 806.
In Gard, Kansas Code of Civil Procedure Annotated, § 718, p. 598, the author comments on K.S.A. 60-718 as follows:
We would add to Judge Gard's comments that as long as a garnishee submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court the discovery provisions of the code give ample tools to the plaintiff to protect and enforce all rights intended to be provided to support his interests. Whenever a garnishee makes an appearance in an action no judgment should be entered against him without providing an opportunity to fully answer and present his defenses.
The judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to permit plaintiff to join issues with the garnishee's answer by reply or other appropriate pleading.