30 Pa. D. & C.5th 299
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2013Background
- Judgment creditor sought to garnish prepaid funds held by an assisted living facility for anticipated future services.
- Defendant resided at Country Meadows of Hershey; two prepayments totaling $50,604.36 were identified as defendant’s funds held by garnishee.
- Garnishment occurred after a stipulated judgment entered against the defendant; Country Meadows answered interrogatories via its officer Mizak.
- Prepayments were created under a Resident Agreement allowing advance payment with interest and potential refunds upon termination or death.
- Statements showed prepaid funds credited to defendant’s account; funds were kept in Country Meadows’ corporate account and earmarked for future charges; sole dispute was whether these funds were defendant’s property at garnishment time.
- A related, separate issue involved garnishment of the defendant’s Social Security and pension income, found exempt under law; the court indicated a broader exemption question was for Legislature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the prepaid funds the defendant’s property held by the garnishee? | Wade argues Country Meadows held funds belonging to Field. | Country Meadows contends funds were its own prepayments, not Field’s property. | Yes; funds are Field’s property under custody/possession control; garnishee liable. |
| Was the judgment entered by admission proper? | Plaintiffs contend Mizak admitted possession of defendant’s funds. | Country Meadows argues the admission lacks clear, unequivocal ownership admission. | Judgment by admission proper; the record shows clear admission of possession. |
| Can any portion of the prepaid funds be exempt from garnishment? | Exemption not shown; funds should be subject to garnishment. | Some funds may be exempt if derived from Social Security or pension. | No proved exempt source; petition to open on exemption denied. |
| Should the petition to open/strike be granted given timeliness and meritorious defenses? | Open/strike not warranted; no meritorious defense material. | Delay in filing opened a potential defense; funds are defendant’s property. | Petition denied; no basis to strike or open beyond merits discussed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruehl v. Maxwell Steel Co., Inc., 474 A.2d 1162 (Pa. Super. 1984) (entry of judgment by admission requires unequivocal admission by garnishee)
- Sevast v. Kakouras, 841 A.2d 1062 (Pa. Super. 2003) (garnishment rights reflect debtor’s rights via third party)
- Appel Vending Co. v. 1601 Corp., 203 A.2d 812 (Pa. Super. 1964) (standing in shoes of debtor in attachment context)
- Krysmalski by Krysmalski v. Tarasovich, 622 A.2d 298 (Pa. Super. 1993) (protection of debtor’s property from garnishment; exemptions analysis)
- First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co. v. Liberati, 422 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Super. 1980) (state of garnishment rights; limitations on creditor’s reach)
- Royal Bank of Pennsylvania v. Selig, 644 A.2d 741 (Pa. Super. 1994) (equitable assignment of garnished property; fiduciary framework)
- Dietrich Industries, Inc. v. Abrams, 455 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 1982) (procedural framework for service and interrogatories in garnishment)
- Haggerty v. Fetner, 481 A.2d 641 (Pa. Super. 1984) (meritorious defense standard in opening judgments)