Court Opinion

ID: 9663873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:54:08.437377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:58.557113
License: Public Domain

Reilly, P.J.
(concurring). I agree that plaintiff should be given an opportunity to show that defendant has other assets that are not subject to plaintiffs lien and should be marshaled by the bank before the bank is allowed to take control of the assets plaintiff claims under its garnishment. However, I do not believe an evidentiary hearing is mandated until plaintiff offers the court some factual basis to support its allegations that other assets of the defendant are available.
A remand for an evidentiary hearing will only increase the costs to the parties involved, further depleting the limited funds available. The parties agree that at the time of the hearing, defendant’s assets totalled approximately $69,000 and that the bank was owed approximately $55,000. The bank claims an additional $23,000 to cover costs and so forth. The plaintiff should be required to make some showing to support its claim that defendant has other assets available for marshaling before requiring extensive discovery and an unlimited evidentiary hearing.
I concur in the remand, but would only require the trial court to allow the plaintiff, after limited discovery, to make an offer of proof showing the need for an evidentiary hearing. If the plaintiff meets that burden, then it should be allowed to conduct further discovery and present evidence at a hearing.