UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PRIME RATE PREMIUM FINANCE 

CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, Case Number 14-12397 

v. Honorable David M. Lawson 

 Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

KAREN E. LARSON, Individually and as 

Personal Representative of the Estate of 

KEITH A. LARSON, Deceased, and 

ADRIAN LEE CARRANZA, 

 Defendants, 

and 

BRANDON LARSON and INSUREPLEX 

MARKET SOLUTIONS, INC. 

 Garnishee-Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 TO OVERRULE OBJECTION TO GARNISHMENT, AND ORDER TO PAY 

 Presently before the Court is the report issued on September 20, 2019 by Magistrate Judge 

David R. Grand under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court overrule the garnisheedefendant GP Insurance Agency Inc.’s objection to garnishment. Although the report stated that 

the parties to this action could object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen 

days of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file 

objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit 

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object 

to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and 

conclusions of the magistrate judge. 
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 governs the seizure of a person or property to satisfy a 

judgment. The rule provides that state law controls unless there is a federal statute to the contrary. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 64. Remedies available under the rule include arrest, garnishment, and attachment. 

Ibid. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 also provides that money judgments and the enforcement 

of them are controlled by state law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 64. In Michigan, garnishment objections are 

covered by M.C.R. 3.101(K)(2), which provides that objections must be based on one or more of 

the following: (a) the funds or property are exempt from garnishment by law; (b) garnishment is 

precluded by the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings; (c) garnishment is barred by an installment 

payment order; (d) garnishment is precluded because the maximum amount permitted by law is 

being withheld under a higher priority garnishment or order; (e) the judgment has been paid; or (f) 

the garnishment was not properly issued or is otherwise invalid. 

 GP Insurance did not articulate the specific basis for its objection to the garnishment under 

M.C.R. 3.101(K)(2). Rather, it merely asserted that the garnishment was improper because its 

Flagstar Bank account is a client trust account and not GP Insurance’s money. Even if such an 

objection was recognized, GP Insurance failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of this 

assertion. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

(ECF No. 674) is ADOPTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that the garnishee-defendant GP Insurance Agency Inc.’s 

objection (ECF No. 652) is OVERRULED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Flagstar Bank shall release funds to the plaintiff under both 

the initial writ of garnishment and the second writ, in the total amount of $25,701.03. 
 s/David M. Lawson 

 DAVID M. LAWSON 

 United States District Judge 

Date: October 8, 2019 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was 

served upon each attorney or party of record herein by 

electronic means or first-class U.S. mail on October 8, 2019. 

 s/Susan K. Pinkowski 

 SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI