Opinion ID: 767986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Intentional Manipulation of Accounts

Text: 28 McMahan next argues that the district court erred in dismissing its claim that the Bank intentionally manipulated Po Folks' accounts to avoid garnishment. We agree.
29 In dismissing McMahan's claim for intentional manipulation, the district court noted that the zero balance structure of Po Folks' accounts had been in place for approximately one year before any of the garnishment orders were served, and concluded that this precluded any manipulation on the part of the Bank to help Po Folks' avoid garnishment. However, there is additional evidence that bears on this determination as well. First, although most of Po Folks' accounts were structured as zero-balance prior to any garnishment orders were served, immediately after the receipt of the first two garnishment orders, the Bank acquiesced to Po Folks' request that the Bank change its only non-zero balance account to a zero balance account, with the understanding that such a change was being made to prevent any further garnishment orders from being honored. See JA 581-2. Second, the Bank delayed paying the first two garnishment orders for two years. 30 Although, as noted by the district court, none of this evidence conclusively establishes that the Bank intentionally manipulated Po Folks' accounts in order to defeat garnishment, the Bank had an independent duty to refrain from conduct that would obstruct enforcement of the judgment. See Board of Regents v. Harriman, 857 S.W. 2d 445 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). As the court in Harriman stated: 31 It is the duty of a garnishee to stand neutral in the litigation over the fund in his hands, to disclose all the information it has concerning the fund to the court, and to hold the fund in readiness to abide by the decision of the court. When he follows this course, he is entitled to the fullest protection; but when the garnishee... abandons his position as stakeholder and takes up the role of a litigant... he must be content to accept the outcome of the battle fought out on the field he has chosen. 32 Id. at 451 (citing Potter v. Whitten, 155 S.W. 80, 88 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913); Restatement (Second) of Judgments §§ 63 comment a (1982)). 33 Thus, in light of the Bank's conduct in changing the non-zero balance account with the knowledge of Po Folks' motivation, coupled with the Bank's own garnishment procedures, and the fact that Po Folks was the Bank's largest customer, we believe that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Bank breached its duty to remain neutral and actively assisted Po Folks in evading garnishment of its property. However, having already found that the Bank is liable for the full amounts of the garnishment orders, supra, this issue is of no practical significance. 34