Opinion ID: 3156819
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discharge of FPCA as Garnishee

Text: At the outset, we noted that federal courts must follow state procedural and substantive law relating to garnishments. In Texas, a putative garnishee 12 Case: 14-20619 Document: 00513281568 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 No. 14-20619 No. 14-20693 may file an answer to the writ of garnishment served on him. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 665. The garnishee’s answer “shall be under oath, in writing and signed by him, and shall make true answers to the several matters inquired of in the writ of garnishment.” Id. If either the plaintiff or the defendant is not satisfied with the garnishee’s answer, “he may controvert the same by his affidavit stating that he has good reason to believe, and does believe, that the answer of the garnishee is incorrect.” TEX R. CIV. P. 673. In the absence of a controverting affidavit, it is presumed that the garnishee’s answer is true. Snyder Nat. Bank v. Pinkston, 219 S.W.2d 606, 607 (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1949). If the garnishee’s answer goes uncontroverted, the court must enter judgment discharging the garnishee when it appears from the answer that: (1) the garnishee is not indebted to the defendant and was not so indebted when served with the writ of garnishment; (2) the garnishee does not possess any effects of the defendant and had not possessed any when the writ was served; and (3) the garnishee has either denied knowledge of any other persons indebted to the defendant or possessing effects belonging to the defendant or else has named such persons. TEX R. CIV. P. 666. This rule is jurisdictional; the trial court has no authority to proceed against the garnishee other than to discharge him on his answer. Goodson v. Carr, 428 S.W.2d 875, 879 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston 1968). Thus, if the garnishee’s answer denies indebtedness and is uncontroverted, the garnishee must be dismissed from the action. Gray v. Armour & Co., 104 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1937, opinion adopted); 13 Case: 14-20619 Document: 00513281568 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/23/2015 No. 14-20619 No. 14-20693 J.C. Hadsell & Co., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 516 S.W.2d 211, 213-14 (Tex. Civ. App. Texarkana 1974); Snyder, 219 S.W.2d at 607. 8 In this case, FPCA filed a verified answer to the writ of garnishment that was under oath, in writing, and (1) denied indebtedness to Curacao, (2) denied possession of Curacao’s effects, and (3) denied knowledge of other persons so indebted. FPCA subsequently moved for discharge after its answer went uncontroverted. Plaintiffs’ unsworn response to this motion cannot be construed as controverting the answer as required by Texas law; the response merely restated plaintiffs’ contentions that the Garnishees are alter egos of each other without controverting that FPCA was not indebted to Curacao. FPCA should have been discharged.