Opinion ID: 1634436
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The lower court erred in dismissing the counterclaim of Cappaert and Way against the appellees, Walker, Bordelon, Hamlin, Theriot and Hardy.

Text: Cappaert and Way assert that Walker, Bordelon should be held liable for the fact that assets of Cappaert's were seized far in excess of the judgment amount, and that the trial judge was in error in dismissing their counterclaim to that effect. This point of error is without merit. The record reveals, and the trial judge noted in his ruling dismissing the counterclaim, that: The writ of garnishment that was filed specifies the amount of the debt. This Court stayed execution and there was no testimony of seizure of any assets other than the accounts pursuant to garnishment. The defendants have failed to prove their counterclaim and it is dismissed. The record does reveal that Cappaert's bank elected to freeze funds of his well in excess of the amount specified in the Garnishment Order and that he suffered embarrassment and hardships as a result of the freezing of said funds. As noted by Walker, Bordelon, however, any excessive freezing of account funds by Cappaert's bank is the responsibility of the Bank, and not Walker, Bordelon. The counterclaim was without merit and was properly dismissed. Therefore, all of the assignments of error are overruled, and the ruling of the circuit court is affirmed. JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. SULLIVAN, P.J., and PITTMAN, BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., SMITH and MILLS, JJ., concur. McRAE, J., concurs in result only. DAN LEE, C.J., not participating.