Cook v. NC Two, L.P.
289 Ga. 462
Ga.2011Background
- NC Two, L.P. garnished a bank in Athens, GA, asserting assets of judgment debtor Kenneth Cook.
- Garnishee served with summons on April 9, 2009; debtor must receive notice of garnishment under OCGA § 18-4-64(a).
- Plaintiff chose OCGA § 18-4-64(a)(7) to send notice by mail within three business days of garnishee service.
- NC Two mailed notice to Cook on April 21, 2009, eight business days after service on the garnishee.
- Cook filed a traverse alleging untimely notice; trial court dismissed traverse for substantial compliance.
- Court of Appeals affirmed substantial compliance; Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding no substantial compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial compliance suffices for notice. | Cook argued notice must strictly comply within three business days. | NC Two argued substantial compliance is permissible under case law. | Substantial compliance not allowed; strict adherence required. |
| Whether OCGA § 18-4-64(a)(7) requires three business days for notice. | Three-day window governs method of notice. | Notice within three business days suffices. | Statute requires timely notice within three business days; eight-day gap violates. |
| Is the notice requirement a due process issue requiring immediate judicial oversight? | Notice is constitutionally essential to due process. | Statutory notice suffices to satisfy due process. | Due process requires timely notice; here it was not timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Georgia Finishing v. Di-Chem, 419 U.S. 601 (1975) (due process concerns in garnishment require notice and opportunity for hearing)
- Coursin v. Harper, 236 Ga. 729 (1976) (pre-judgment garnishment due process concerns; procedural safeguards)
- City Finance Co. v. Winston, 238 Ga. 10 (1976) (post-judgment garnishment notice required; statutory revision deemed inadequate without notice)
- Easterwood v. LeBlanc, 240 Ga. 61 (1977) (garnishment statute post-1977 meets due process with notice)
- TBF Financial, LLC v. Houston, 298 Ga. App. 657 (2009) (substantial compliance not sufficient when statute plain and unambiguous)
- Gainesville Feed, etc. Co. v. Waters, 87 Ga.App. 354 (1952) (service in garnishment context; repealed statute context)
- Henderson v. Mutual Fertilizer Co., 150 Ga. 465 (1920) (garnishee could not attack judgment via illegality affidavit under obsolete rules)
- Resnik v. Pittman, 203 Ga.App. 835 (1992) (limits on substantial compliance in statutory interpretation)
- Bible v. Bible, 259 Ga. 418 (1989) (statutory plainness negates need for liberal construction)