If the garnishee answers as required herein and no reply thereto is filed within 10 days, the allegations of the answer are deemed to be confessed. The garnishment question does not end there, however. The district court granted an oral motion by Voyles for leave to reply out of time. Neither the record on appeal nor the journal entry on this ruling articulate a basis for the ruling. The problem, as we see it, is that the rule in Phelps regarding the conclusiveness of an answer clashes with the discretion allowed under K.S.A.1999 Supp.
Several facts weigh in on our decision here.
We further note that in the cases we examined, the party asserting excusable neglect immediately sought relief, sometimes within hours. Here, the passage of so much time leads us to the conclusion that the trial court should not have allowed Voyles the opportunity to reply to the first garnishment. He did not move to file a reply out of time to the original answer of the garnishee until he made an oral motion on October 22, 1998. Prior to July 22, Voyles' failure to act may have been a result of excusable neglect. However, beyond July 22, it is hard to imagine that a reasonable person could find Voyles' course of action constituted excusable neglect.