Posted: January 21, 2010
Rules of Civil Procedure
URCP 058B. Satisfaction of judgment. Amend. Simplify and clarify the process for entering a satisfaction of judgment. Provide the judgment debtor with a process to raise the issue.
URCP 064D. Writ of garnishment. Amend. Eliminate the requirement that the garnishee file answers to interrogatories with the court. Establishes deadline for hearing on objection to a writ.
URCP 064E. Writ of execution. Amend. Establishes deadline for hearing on objection to a writ.
I have two comments concerning the proposed changes to Rule 64D(H)(1) and two suggestions to improve the existing rule.
The first sentence of Rule 64D(h)(1) seems to be grammatically incorrect. It may simply be a matter of putting commas before and after the new phrase “a copy of the garnishee’s answers.”
My second comment deals with the addition to Rule 64D(h)(2) of the phrase “as soon as possible and not to exceed 14 days.” I understand and agree with the imposition of a hearing deadline, but I would also suggest that the court be required to mail to the parties notice of hearing 5 days in advance of the hearing date. We already occasionally encounter situations where we receive notice by mail or telephone to appear in court the following day (even the same day!), and I fear that imposition of a deadline will cause this to happen more frequently. Additionally, like most collection attorneys we practice throughout the state. It can be a tremendous hardship when we are required to appear at a hearing on very short notice.
The first of my additional suggestions to improve Rule 64D deals with subsection (h)(1). The current (as well as proposed) rule requires that the party replying to the garnishee interrogatories file the reply with the court and serve the garnishee. The rule should be amended to require the filing party to also serve the non-filing party. In practice the party filing the reply is generally the defendant. If my suggestion were to be implemented the defendant would be required to serve a copy of his reply on the plaintiff, which would allow the plaintiff to be better prepared when appearing at the subsequent hearing.
My second suggestion also deals with subsection (h). Subsections (h)(1)(A) through (h)(1)(D) list the grounds under which a reply may be made. A majority of garnishment hearings we attend are the result of replies which list grounds outside those enumerated in the rule (most are attempts to challenge the original judgment). Such challenges are dismissed by the court and constitute a waste of court resources. Therefore, I propose that the court be required to schedule a hearing only if the reply raises a challenge enumerated in subsections (h)(1)(A) through (h)(1)(D).