Opinion ID: 1971395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Return of Wage Attachment Claim

Text: Lastly, Gamles claims that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in its February 2, 2007 amended Order, which directed Gibson, Sr.'s employer as well as Gamles' officer, Steven M. Goldstein, to return to Gibson, Sr. all wage attachment proceeds received after January 14, 2004. We review questions of law de novo. [23] On February 2, 2007, the Superior Court entered an Order providing that Gibson, Sr.'s employer, Ogborne Waste Removal, shall return all monies that came into their possession after the judgment expired on January 14, 2004, to Donald J. Gibson, Sr. Gamles claims that because Gibson, Sr. continues to owe it a significant debt and judgment balance, . . . it would be manifestly unfair to cause a judgment creditor to refund monies received by way of legitimate and long accepted execution proceeding while such debt remains unpaid. The Superior Court Order directing Gamles to refund to Gibson, Sr. monies received after 2004, rests on the erroneous conclusion that Gamles' wage attachment did not survive the expiration of the underlying judgment. As discussed above, the underlying judgment did survive, and so did the wage attachment. Therefore, the Gibsons remain liable under the 1994 judgment, and Gamles remains entitled to collect the unpaid balance due under Gibson, Sr.'s wage attachment. The Gibsons acknowledge that the Superior Court did not find the judgment had been paid in full and that the court [erred] in finding the employer stopped payment in 2000. The Gibsons claim, nonetheless, that the judgment entered on January 14, 2004 has been paid in full and should be satisfied of record. [24] The difficulty is that the parties dispute how much has been paid, and how much remains to be paid, to satisfy the judgment. Because the Superior Court decided only what it deemed to be Wile sole issue . . . whether a wage attachment survive[s] expiration of a judgment, [25] the court did not reach the question of whether the balance of the judgment had been paid, and if not, what unpaid balance remains. Because the issues of payment and balance due are critical to resolving this case, but are not the subject of any determinations by the Superior Court, those issues are not properly before us for review. [26] Those issues must be determined by the trial court in the first instance.