Opinion ID: 891657
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Plan's right of action is mature.

Text: {58} As previously discussed, in order to be garnishable the right of the judgment debtor against the garnishee must be mature, not contingent. Here, there is no future event that could change the terms of the Policy or upset the findings of the default judgment. Indeed, the Court of Appeals prefaced its analysis by stating, The parties do not frame their arguments so as to allege or deny the existence of a genuine issue of material fact; rather, the question presented focuses on the propriety of the district court's application of our garnishment law.... We therefore focus exclusively on ... whether Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Kirby II, 2008-NMCA-154, ¶ 7, 145 N.M. 264, 196 P.3d 965. If Guardian is liable to the Plan for breaching the Policy, it is liable immediately. The district court made the determination that Guardian was liable as a matter of law, and we affirm its conclusion. Thus, Guardian's liability to the Plan for breaching the terms of the Policy is currently owing and payable. The only remaining question is whether Guardian's defense of res judicata defeats the Plan's right of action.