### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00496- CV

Bank One , N A, App e lla nt
v. GWJ Source net Distr ibu tion, Inc., App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLI AMSO N COUNTY NO. 04-1 326- CC2, HO NORAB LE TIMO THY L. WRIGHT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n this restricted a

ppeal, B ank One challeng es the defa ult judg ment rende red in fa vor of GWJ Sourcene t D istribution, Inc. (GWJ Sourcene t). Ba nk One c ontends that the county court at law er red in e nter ing the defa

ult judgment bec ause the writ of g arnishment wa s defe ctive and beca use the return of service of the writ of g arnishment wa s defe ctive. B ank One also insists t hat the re is no ev ide nc e to sup po rt the c ounty

c ourt a t la w’ s a wa rd of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s to GWJ Sourc e ne t. Be caus e we h old that the writ of g arnishment wa s defe ctive, we reve rse the de fault judg ment and
re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.
BACK GR OUND On October 5, 2004, GWJ Sourcene t obtained a de fault judg ment in the county court
a t l awf o r $ 9 6 , 7 2 9 p lu s inte r e s t a

n d a tt o r n e y ’ s f e e s a g a in s t J& B Co mp u te r M a inte n an c e , In c . G WJ“ I f t he g arn ish e e fai ls t o f

ile an a ns we r t o th e wr it o f g arn ish me nt at or be fo re the tim e 1 direc ted in the writ, it shall be lawful for the c ourt . . . to rende r judg ment by defa ult . . . ag ainst such g arnishee for the f

ull amount of such judg ment ag ainst the defe ndant tog ether with all interest and costs that may

have a ccr ued in the main case and also in the g arnishment proc eeding s.” Tex. R. Ci v. P. 667. 2 S ou rc e n e t t h e n fi ledan ap pl ica ti on for a wri t o f garni sh men t i n an att emp t t o garni sh J &B Computer’s acc ount at B ank One. The writ of g arnishment issued on November 29 and wa s serve d on Ba nk One’ s reg istered a g ent on Novembe r 30; Ba nk One did not fil e a written answe r as r equire d by the writ. On J anuar

y 20, 2005, the county court at law enter ed a de fault judg ment ag ainst Ba nk One f or the full amount of the judg ment ag ainst J &B Computer, plus attorney ’s fe es. This restricte d 1 appea l followed.
STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW To preva il in a restricte d appea l, a par ty must establish that (1) it filed not ice of the restric ted appe al within six months after the judgme nt was sig ned, (2) it was a party to the under ly ing suit, (3) it did not participate i n the hearing that resulted in the j udg ment complained of and did not timely file any post-judgme nt motions or re quests for findings of f act a nd conclusions of law , and (4) err or is appar ent on the fa ce of the re cord. See A lexande r v. Lynda’s Boutique , 134 S.W .3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004). The f

ace of the rec ord, for pur

poses of a restric ted appe al, consists of all the pape rs
on fi le in t he a pp e a l, i nc lud ingthe state me nt o f f a c ts. Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co. , 9 55 S.W. 2d

26 9, 27 0 ( Te x. 19 97 ). In th is c a se , th e pa rt ie s d isp ute on ly

wh e the r e rr or

is appar ent on the fa ce of

the re cord.B ank On e a lso ma int a ins that th e wr it o f g arn ish me nt w a s d e fe c tiv e be c a us e it d id n ot s tate 2 the (1 ) n ame and

loc a tio n o f t

he iss uin g c ourt , ( 2) fi lin g date of the wr it, and

(3 ) n ame and

a dd re ss of pla int if f’ s c ouns e l. B e c a

us e we ho ld that the wr it of g arn ish me nt wa s is su e d b y an in c or re c t c ourt , we do no t a dd

re ss t he se a lle g e d e rr or s. 3

DI SCU SSIO N Ba nk One contends that the writ of g arnishment is de fec tive beca use it was issued by the incorr ect c ourt. We ag ree . 2 Gar nishment is a st atutory proce edingwher eby the prope rty , money , or cr edits of a debtor in the pos session of another are applied to the pay ment of a de bt. SeeTe x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. C o d e A n n . § 6 3
. 0 0 1 ( W e s t1 9 9 7 ) ; T e x. R
. C i v . P
. 65 7- 79 ; Beg gs v. F ite , 106 S.W .2d 1039, 1042 (T e x. 19 37 ); Jamison v. National Loan Investors, L.P. , 4 S.W. 3d 46 5, 46 8 ( Te x. A

p p. —H ou sto n [1s t Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)
. Thus, g arnishment nece ssarily involves three parties: a cr editor, a de btor, and a third person who ha s some obligation to the debtor. Oran geCou nty v . W ar e , 819 S.W .2d 472, 47 4 (Tex
. 19 91 ). Ga

rn ishme nt i s a

c re dit or ’s a c tio n a g a ins t hi s d e bto r’ s d e bto r, the g arn ish e e , to obtain satisfac tion of what is owed the c reditor. Id . F un ds pla c e d w itha ba nk ord in ari ly

be c ome g ener al deposits that cre ate a debtor-c reditor r elationship betwee n the bank and its de positor. Bank One, N.A. v. Sunbe lt Sav., F.S.B. , 824 S.W .2d 557, 558 (Tex. 1992).

A writ of garni sh me nt i s ava ila ble to a jud g me nt c re dit or

wh e re the c re dit or

ha s a “valid, subsisting judg ment and makes an aff idavit stating that, within the plaintiff' s knowledg e, the defe ndant does not posse ss pr operty in T exas subjec t to execution suf ficient to satisfy

the judg ment.” Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 63.001(3). Although a g arnishment ac tion is separate from the orig inal action, it is ancillary to the orig inal proce edingand take s its jurisdi ction from the unde rlying suit. See V

arner v. Koons , 8 88 S.W. 2d 51 1, 51 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Paso 19 94 , o ri g . p ro c e e din g ); seeBe cause we hold that the wr it of g arnishment wa s defe ctive, we do not addre ss the alleg ed 3 de fe c ts i n th e re tur

n o f s e rv ic e of

the wr it. 4 also Baca v. Hoove r, Bax &Shearer , 823 S.W .2d 734, 738 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1992,
wr it d e nie d) . T he c ourt

in whic h th e or ig ina l su it w a s b ro ug ht h a s th e a uth or ity to issue the wr it. King & King v. Porter , 2 52 S.W. 10 22 , 102 2 ( Te x. 19 23 ). In a dd iti on , th e wr it o f g arn ish me nt m us t have the seal of the issuing cour t i m p re s sed on it. Tex. R . Civ. P . 15 (all writs shall be dated and attested by

cler k with seal of c ourt impressed ther eon), 662 ( writ of g arnishment shall be dated and te ste d a s o the r wri ts) . I t has lon g be e n r e c og nize d in thi s st ate that th e re me dy of g arn ish me nt i s summary and har sh and should not be sustained unless ther e is strict compliance with the statutory require ments and the re lated rule s. See , e.g. , Beggs , 1 06 S.W. 2d a t 10 42 ; Me nd

oz a v . Lu k

e Fr uia Inv. I nc. , 9 62 S.W. 2d

65 0, 65 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 19 98 , n o p e t.) ; W alnut Equip. L easing Co. v. J-V Dirt & Loam , 907 S.W .2d 912, 915 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ denied). Her e, GWJ Sourcene t filed an a pplication for a

writ of g arnishment in County Court at L aw No. 2 of

Wil liamson County , the same c ourt that issued the defa ult judg ment in the orig inal suit ag ainst J &B Computer. Howeve r, the writ of g arnishment wa s issued by County Court at L aw No . 3 and wa s im pr e sse d w iththat c ourt ’s se a l. County Court a t L aw No
. 3 wa s no t a uth or ize d to issue the writ. King & King , 252 S.W
. at 1022. There fore , there is e rror on the fac e of the re cord. Ac c or din g ly , we ho ld that th e wr it o f g arn ish me nt w a s d e fe c tiv e and that it c ann ot s e rv e a s th e ba sis fo r a de fa ult jud g me nt. 35 CO NC LU SION B e c a us e we ho ld t

hat the wr it of g arn ish me nt wa s de fe c tiv e , w e re ve rs e the de fa ult jud g me nt a

nd re mand fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Reverse d and Remande d Filed: Jul y

21, 2006