Opinion ID: 1660076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Garnishment Proceedings

Text: Marvin argues that issuing the Writ of Garnishment to Texas Eastern in the amount of $550.00 on March 16, 1992, four days after the judgment, was premature and illegal, being in violation of M.R.C.P. 62(a), which mandates an automatic 10-day stay of execution. He states that he did not have an opportunity to defend against the motion for garnishment, and that his paycheck was in fact garnished, with ensuing stigma. Christine contends that the garnishment was voluntarily stayed pending the hearing of Marvin's Motion for Relief of Judgment, and that no funds were withheld from Marvin's wages until his appeal was perfected without supersedeas. Therefore, she contends, any error is moot and harmless. M.R.C.P. 62 provides in part: (a) Automatic Stay; Exceptions. Except as stated herein or as otherwise provided by statute or order of the court for good cause shown, no execution shall be issued upon a judgment nor shall proceedings be taken for its enforcement until the expiration of ten days after its entry or the disposition of a motion for a new trial, whichever last occurs ... The record contains the following documents filed subsequent to entry of the March 12th judgment, which included the award of attorney's fees: 1) an order issued March 12th to Texas Eastern to withhold $250.00 per month of Marvin's wages for child support; 2) a Suggestion for Writ of Garnishment submitted by Roy Perilloux on March 16th against Texas Eastern in the amount of $550.00; 3) a Writ of Garnishment for $550.00 issued March 16th, and served on Texas Eastern on March 18th; Marvin's Motion for Relief and to Stay Garnishment Proceedings, filed March 20th; a Notice of Hearing on the motion for April 1st, also filed March 20th; an Answer by Texas Eastern filed April 3rd; a Renotice of Hearing for April 23rd, filed April 10th; and the chancellor's April 28th Order Denying Relief from the Judgment and Denying Stay of Garnishment Proceedings. There is no evidence that Marvin's wages were in fact garnished in the amount of $550.00. We cannot address Marvin's claim that the writ was executed prematurely, without knowing when it was executed. See, e.g., Wallace v. State, 607 So.2d 1184, 1189 (Miss. 1992) (Facts asserted to exist must and ought to be definitely proved and placed before us by a record, certified by law; otherwise, we cannot know them). The grant of attorney's fees is reversed; as discussed above, the record on remand should contain adequate documentation supporting any award of fees. If garnishment is again ordered, the record should contain documentation of this as well. [6]