IPacesetters, LLC v. Kace Douglas and Randi Dampha, 239 W. Va. 820

Background

Respondents obtained a class-action judgment against Tele-Response Center, Inc., and served a suggestion of personal property on iPacesetters, LLC (petitioner), seeking amounts owed to Tele-Response under a November 30, 2011 Services Agreement and related documents.
iPacesetters acquired most of Telestar’s assets and entered a Services Agreement under which it paid Tele-Response monthly “cost-plus” amounts and three scheduled payments ($500,000 conditional, $250,000 paid early, plus an earlier payment).
After the suggestion was served, iPacesetters continued to make substantial monthly payments to Tele-Response (totaling over $2 million post-suggestion).
iPacesetters denied owing amounts to Tele-Response in its verified answer, characterized obligations as contingent, and argued some payments were destined to satisfy preexisting IRS and Dresnok liens.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for respondents, holding most payments were fixed (not contingent), superior lienholders had not asserted or proved priority, and no genuine factual issues remained requiring a jury.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (iPacesetters)	Defendant's Argument (Douglas/Dampha)	Held
Whether contractual payments were "fixed" or "contingent" and thus reachable by suggestion	Payments were contingent on Tele-Response providing services/invoices; iPacesetters bore no liability to Tele-Response’s vendors; obligations not presently payable	Obligation to pay Tele-Response existed (monthly cost-plus), only amounts varied; thus debts were fixed/unmatured and garnishable	Payments (except the $500,000 subject to paragraph 1(b)(ii)) were fixed/unmatured and subject to garnishment; summary judgment appropriate
Whether alleged superior liens (IRS, Dresnok) prevented respondents from collecting garnished funds	iPacesetters claimed those liens had priority so respondents could not reach funds	Respondents noted no recorded IRS lien proof and no appearance/claim by Dresnok; lienholders did not seek garnishment	No evidence of recorded federal tax lien or enforceable recorded Dresnok judgment; lienholders did not assert priority—respondents’ suggestion prevails
Whether petitioner was entitled to a jury trial under W. Va. Code § 38-5-18	Denial in answer raised factual disputes about debts and payments that should go to a jury	Facts were developed; remaining question (fixed vs. contingent) is legal; Rule 56 applies when no genuine issue of material fact exists	No jury required: factual record was developed and the fixed/contingent question was legal; court properly resolved it on summary judgment
Whether summary judgment was proper	Summary judgment premature because factual disputes existed about purpose and destination of payments and lien priorities	Record undisputed on material facts; legal interpretation of contract for court; petitioner failed to produce admissible proof of superior liens	Affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact; court correctly applied law and entered summary judgment for respondents

Key Cases Cited

Emmons-Hawkins Hardware Co. v. Sizemore, 106 W. Va. 259, 145 S.E. 438 (W. Va. 1928) (garnishment recovery allowed only where garnishee is liable to the judgment debtor)
Waco Equip. Co. v. B.C. Hale Constr. Co., Inc., 182 W. Va. 381, 387 S.E.2d 848 (W. Va. 1989) (contingent liabilities are not subject to garnishment)
Commercial Bank of Bluefield v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 175 W. Va. 588, 336 S.E.2d 552 (W. Va. 1985) (distinguishes contingent debts from fixed but unmatured or unliquidated debts that are garnishable)
M.W. Kellogg Co. v. Concrete Accessories Corp., 157 W. Va. 763, 204 S.E.2d 61 (W. Va. 1974) (contingent contractual liabilities are not subject to attachment/garnishment)
Stephens v. Bartlett, 118 W. Va. 421, 191 S.E. 550 (W. Va. 1937) (interpretation of written contracts is a question for the court)