ML Manager v. Jensen, 287 Neb. 171

ML Manager obtained a default judgment against Dale and Vicki Jensen for ~$52M and issued a summons of garnishment to Pioneer Ventures, LLC with interrogatories.
Pioneer filed answers to the interrogatories with the court clerk within 10 days (April 30, 2012). ML Manager was not served with those answers and learned of them on May 7.
ML Manager filed an objection to the garnishee’s answers on May 25, more than 20 days after Pioneer’s filing. The trial court overruled the objection as untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1030.
ML Manager appealed, arguing (1) the 20-day period to apply for determination should run from actual receipt of notice, (2) the garnishee must serve its answers on the garnishor, (3) the rules of civil procedure require service, and (4) excusable neglect should allow a late objection.
The Nebraska Supreme Court addressed statutory interpretation of the garnishment scheme and whether service/notice by the garnishee is required before the 20-day clock runs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a garnishee must serve its answers on the garnishor	ML Manager: garnishee must serve answers; otherwise plaintiff cannot know to challenge them	Pioneer: statutes require filing but not service; no duty to serve garnishor	Held: Garnishee is not required to serve or otherwise notify garnishor of interrogatory answers
When the 20-day period for filing an application under § 25-1030 begins	ML Manager: 20 days should run from garnishor's actual receipt of answers	Pioneer: 20 days runs from garnishee’s filing of answers with the court	Held: 20-day period runs from filing (i.e., statute does not condition it on notice to garnishor)
Whether Nebraska rules of civil procedure require service of the answers	ML Manager: Rule 6-1105 requires service of all subsequent pleadings, so answers must be served	Pioneer: Rules yield to inconsistent statutory scheme; garnishment statutes control	Held: Civil procedure rule is inconsistent with specific garnishment statutes and does not require service here
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying late objection for excusable neglect	ML Manager: late filing should be excused due to neglect; court has discretion to extend	Pioneer: ML Manager had actual notice in time and offers no valid excuse	Held: No abuse of discretion; trial court properly denied relief because ML Manager had notice in time and gave no valid excuse

NC+ Hybrids v. Growers Seed Assn., 219 Neb. 296 (discussed prior rule applying strict construction to garnishment statutes; court disapproved that approach)
Spaghetti Ltd. Partnership v. Wolfe, 264 Neb. 365 (previous application of strict construction to garnishment statutes reconsidered)
DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 285 Neb. 974 (statutory interpretation treated as question of law)
Kepley v. Irwin, 14 Neb. 300 (historical precedent on liberal construction of the code of civil procedure)