Opinion ID: 1842256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the pension benefits

Text: Appellant next contends that the trial court should have ordered United to pay into court the pension money when it became due to Kirkland. As was stated in Sloss v. Glaze, supra, the fund sought to be garnished must be due absolutely and without contingency. In answer to interrogatories propounded by the appellant, United stated that Kirkland does have a pension plan with them, but stated that the amounts to which he would be entitled would not be known until such time as he had a claim or was eligible for pension benefits. It is undisputed that Kirkland has no present claim to the monies in the pension plan; therefore, this fund is a contingent fund, not an amount to which Kirkland presently has a claim, and is not subject to garnishment at the present time. The trial court correctly so held.