Court Opinion

ID: 9604333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:19:55.71508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:21.189251
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting) :
I dissent. This action was for the collection of an account due for merchandise sold to the defendants. It was commenced by the filing of a complaint, and at the same time a writ of garnishment was served upon Greyhound Bus Lines, the employer of Ronald W. Dietrich. Sufficient money was attached to pay the debt. The summons was not issued within three months following the filing of the complaint as required by Rule 4(b), U.R.C.P. However, in my opinion Mr. Dietrich made a general appearance in this case on February 27, 1969, when he filed a claim of exemption and motion to set aside the execution of attachment of wages. Mrs. Ronald W. Dietrich never made an appearance in this matter, and so she is not before the court.
The cases hold that an attack can be made upon the validity of a garnishment without making a general appearance, but the defendant here did not claim that the. attachment was void. He acknowledged its validity and moved the court to release all of the funds upon the ground that his earnings were only $800 per month and his living expenses amounted to $845.40 per month. By asking for affirmative relief, he made a general appearance, and no summons was required to bring him before the court. The law is set forth in 5 Am. Jur.2d, Appearance § 21, as follows:
A general appearance is ordinarily effected by the making of any motion * * * based wholly or in part on non-jurisdictional grounds. * * *
Later, a summons was served upon Mr. Dietrich containing the following required language:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon or mail to plaintiff’s attorney an answer in writing to the complaint and file a copy of said answer with the clerk of the above-entitled court within 20 days after service of this summons upon you. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you * * *
*68Mr. Dietrich, following the directions in the summons, served a document upon plaintiff’s attorney by mailing it to him and also mailed a copy to the District Court of Salt Lake County where the action was pending. It is reproduced herewith.1 As an answer it was somewhat informal but in my opinion satisfied the requirements of the law as to making a general appearance in the matter. Rule 4(b), supra, says that the summons is to be issued within three months. This does not necessarily mean that there cannot be further proceedings in the action. The defendant can breathe life into it by voluntarily making an appearance therein. Even if the motion for release of funds had not brought the defendant into court, in my opinion the filing of this document did. It was, therefore, error for the plaintiff to take a default judgment against the defendant since the answer was filed before the default of the defendant was entered.
However, it is not the defendant who moved to set aside the proceedings in the court below, nor is it he who is defending the order made by the trial court; it is a stranger to the main action, to wit, the garnishee. It claims standing to participate in this matter because it does not want to pay twice. The answer to that contention is that if the garnishee does not want to pay twice, it should pay the money into court and let the defendant and the plaintiff vie for the funds.
The garnishee can have no interest in the case as it pertains to the issues between the parties thereto. 38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 23S. If it chose to ignore the garnish*69ment and pay the plaintiff, it must sue the plaintiff to recover that sum but cannot move the court for a judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
I would dismiss this appeal and remand the case to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just and proper. I would award costs to the appellant against the Greyhound Bus Lines.

. “Copy to District Court of Salt Lake County Horace X Knowlton
Dear Sirs:
9-30-1969
This is in answer to complaint civil No. 184947.
First: You claim that we are residents of Salt Lake County or have property in Salt Lake County, State of Utah.
Answer=We moved to Pacifies, Calif, on March 8, 1965 and have been residents of Calif, since and we have never had property in Salt Lake County.
Second: Mr. Knowlton, I once told you that this bill was not mine. And that the person responsible has used or signed my name, ‘whichever the case.’
Remarks: Last February, 1969, you had a wage attachment against me. I have suffered embrassment [sic], my job was jeopardized, and other personal effects.
Now: I had to hire an attorny [sic] to get my money that was held for this attachment. The same Civil No. 184947.
Please let me know if you are going to pursue this matter, ‘if so,’ I will let my attorny [sic] handle it. My compensation for this matter may be expensive.
4 e. e. Ronald W. Dietrich”