Opinion ID: 1830760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing four rivers a setoff of $1,066.39 against the amount due and owing under the four rivers contract.

Text: ¶ 21. The gist of CPSC's position is that $785.44 of the $1,066.39 claimed setoff was not due until January 31, 1996, which was two days after the writ of garnishment was served on Four Rivers. Thus, the setoff should be disallowed because it came after the service of the writ. ¶ 22. A garnishee may setoff a claim that he has against the principal debtor provided that the claim is due and enforceable at the time process was served. Brondum v. Rosenblum, 151 Miss. 91, 92, 117 So. 363, 365 (1928). CPSC is correct in noting that the claim became due after the writ of garnishment was served on Four Rivers. However, the chancellor applied an exception to the rule. Where the garnishee's claim arose out of the very contract upon which his liability to the principal debtor accrued, the garnishee may setoff the claim even though it became due after the date of service of the writ. Von Gemmingen v. First National Bank of Anchorage, 890 P.2d 60, 63 (Alaska 1995); Harpster v. Reynolds, 215 Kan. 327, 524 P.2d 212, 215 (1974). CPSC does not dispute that the claim for setoff arose out the same contract which makes Four Rivers liable to Fortenberry. We find that the chancellor was correct in allowing Four Rivers a setoff in the amount of $1,066.39.