Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-mc-00044/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-mc-00044-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor North Shore Bank has filed an Application for 

Judgment on Garnishment. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment against Garnishee 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, for nonexempt monies in the amount of $2,229.50, which 

Plaintiff alleges belongs to Defendant/Judgment Debtor Darrel Keuck. On September 18, 

2015, Plaintiff’s Application was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John Z. 

Boyle for further proceedings. (Doc. 15.) 

 On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central 

Division, entered default judgment against Defendant. (Doc. 1 at 2.) As part of the 

judgment, the Court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff a principal in the amount of 

North Shore Bank, FSB, 

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, 

vs. 

Darrel Keuck, 

Defendant/Judgment Debtor. 

________________________________

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 

Garnishee. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MC 15-00044-PHX-GMS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:15-mc-00044-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 4
-2- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

$670,000.00, late charges in the amount of $276,226.87, appraisal costs in the amount of 

$380.00, attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,965.85, and interest in the amount of 

$147,221.15 through October 14, 2014, and $13,214.52 for the period between October 

14, 2014, and March 3, 2015. (Id. at 3.) In total, the District Court entered default 

judgment against Defendant in the amount of $968,008.39. (Id.) On July 16, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed an Application for Writ of Garnishment of Non-Earnings (Doc. 6), alleging 

that Garnishee is holding money for Defendant which is not exempt from collection. On 

July 21, 2015, the Deputy Clerk issued a Writ of Garnishment and Summons (NonEarnings) (Doc. 9), ordering Garnishee to file an answer. 

 On August 3, 2015, Garnishee filed an Answer to Writ of Garnishment (NonEarnings). (Doc. 12.) In the Answer, Garnishee states that it is indebted or otherwise is 

in possession of nonexempt monies of Defendant, $2,229.50 of which it has withheld. 

(Id. at 1.) Garnishee also states that it mailed, via regular first class mail, copies of the 

Writ and Summons, underlying Judgment, Notice to Judgment Debtor, and Request for 

Hearing to Defendant on July 24, 2015, and a copy of the Answer to Plaintiff and 

Defendant on July 29, 2015. (Id. at 2.) Defendant did not file an objection to the Writ or 

Answer, or request a hearing. On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Application 

for Judgment on Garnishment. (Doc. 13.) 

 Under Arizona’s garnishment statute,1 “the garnishee shall deliver a copy of the 

answer and a copy of the notice to judgment debtor and request for hearing form to the 

judgment debtor.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1598.08(C). In filing an answer to the writ of 

garnishment, “the garnishee shall deliver a copy of the answer to the judgment debtor and 

the judgment creditor” and the answer shall set forth “[t]he date and manner of delivery 

to the judgment debtor of a copy of the writ and the notice to judgment debtor.” Ariz. 

 

1

 The process to enforce a judgment for the payment of money is a writ of execution, unless the district court directs otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). Generally, a federal writ of execution “must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located.” 

Id.

Case 2:15-mc-00044-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 4
-3- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Rev. Stat. § 12-1579(C), (D)(12). 

 “A party who has an objection to the writ of garnishment, the answer of the 

garnishee or the amount held by the garnishee or a party claiming an exemption from 

garnishment may, not later than ten days after the receipt of the answer, file a written 

objection and request for hearing.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12- 1580(A). If the answer of the 

garnishee “shows that the garnishee was indebted to the judgment debtor at the time of 

service of the writ, and no objection to the writ or answer is timely filed, on application 

by the judgment creditor the court shall enter judgment on the writ against the garnishee 

for the amount of the nonexempt monies of the judgment debtor owed or held by the 

garnishee at the time of service of the writ.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1584(A). 

 In the instant case, the Writ of Garnishment and Summons instructs Garnishee to 

provide “[t]he date and manner of delivery of a copy of the Writ and Notice to the 

Judgment Debtor,” and “a copy of the Answer to the Judgment Creditor and Judgment 

Debtor.” (Doc. 9.) Garnishee’s Answer states that Garnishee served Defendant and 

Plaintiff with the required documents. (Doc. 12 at 2.) Moreover, under Arizona’s 

garnishment statute, a presumption exists “that a document has been received five days 

after it is mailed . . . .” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1597(A). Here, because Garnishee avers that 

it mailed the Writ of Garnishment, Notice to Judgment Debtor, and Request for Hearing 

forms to Defendant on July 24, 2015, and mailed Garnishee’s Answer to Defendant on 

July 29, 2015, it may be presumed that Defendant received those documents. Further, 

Plaintiff indicates that it mailed Defendant a copy of its Application for Judgment on 

Garnishment on August 21, 2015. (Doc. 13 at 2.) Therefore, the Court finds that 

Defendant was afforded an opportunity to object to the garnishment and request a 

hearing, but has not done so. Based on this record, the Court will recommend that the 

Application for Judgment on Garnishment be granted and judgment entered. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Application for Judgment on 

Case 2:15-mc-00044-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 4
-4- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Garnishment (Doc. 13) be granted and judgment entered. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within 

which to file a response to the objections. 

 Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of 

the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of 

the findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

IT IS ORDERED that on or before October 6, 2015, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor 

shall serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation on Defendant/Judgment Debtor 

Darrel Keuck, and file proof of service. 

 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2015. 

 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-mc-00044-GMS Document 16 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 4