BLACH v. DIAZ-VERSON
Filing
28
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Stay; denying 21 Motion for Disbursement of Funds Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 04/01/2016 (nmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
HAROLD BLACH, JR.,
*
Plaintiff,
*
vs.
*
AFLAC, INC.,
*
Garnishee,
CASE NO. 4:15-MC-5
*
SAL DIAZ-VERSON,
*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Plaintiff Harold Blach obtained a $158,343.40 judgment in
Alabama against Defendant Sal Diaz-Verson.
judgment
against
in
this
Court.
Garnishee
AFLAC,
judgment.
Blach
Inc.
He registered that
then
filed
this
an
attempt
to
in
garnishment
collect
his
AFLAC makes bi-monthly payments from its Columbus,
Georgia office to its former employee, Diaz-Verson, pursuant to
a
severance
agreement.
AFLAC
withheld
$13,380.82
from
the
payments to Diaz-Verson pursuant to Blach’s first summons of
garnishment.
Diaz-Verson
objects
to
AFLAC
withholding
any
amount from what it owes him, and he filed a traverse to the
garnishment.
After this Court denied the traverse, Diaz-Verson
appealed the Court’s denial to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Diaz-Verson seeks a stay of this action while his
appeal is pending (ECF No. 16).
Specifically, he objects to the
Court distributing the $13,380.82 to Blach during the appeal.
He
also
argues
that
he
should
not
be
required
to
post
a
supersedeas bond given that Blach is adequately protected during
the appeal as long as AFLAC holds the $13,380.82 and does not
pay these garnished funds to anyone.
Blach filed a motion for
distribution of the $13,380.82 to him and argues that if that
motion is not granted, Diaz-Verson should be required to post an
adequate supersedeas bond (ECF No. 21).
DISCUSSION
I.
Stay of Blach’s First Summons of Garnishment
The Court finds that this action should be stayed pending
the current appeal.
The Court further finds that rather than
requiring
a
supersedeas
interests
of
the
$13,380.82
into
parties
the
bond,
by
the
Court
ordering
registry
of
can
AFLAC
this
protect
deposit
to
the
the
Court.
The
Court
recognizes that AFLAC faces a competing garnishment filed in the
Superior Court of Muscogee County by Robert Frey.
But the Court
knows of no reason why Diaz-Verson’s state court creditor cannot
make
a
claim
to
the
funds
deposited
in
this
action.
See
O.C.G.A. § 18-4-95 (“At any time before judgment is entered on
the garnishee’s answer or money or other property subject to
garnishment
is
distributed,
any
person
may
file
a
claim
in
writing under oath stating that he has a claim superior to that
2
of the plaintiff to the money or other property in the hands of
the garnishee subject to the process of garnishment; and the
claimant shall be a party to all further proceedings upon the
garnishment.”).
Accordingly, AFLAC is directed to deposit the
$13,380.82 of garnished funds into the registry of the Court
within seven days of today’s Order.
This action shall be stayed
until further order of this Court.
Accordingly, Blach’s motion
for distribution is denied at this time.
II.
Additional Summonses of Garnishment
The Court also recognizes that Blach filed a second summons
of garnishment against the same bi-monthly AFLAC payments at
issue
here.
summonses
Under
of
Georgia
garnishment
judgment is satisfied.
law,
against
Blach
AFLAC
may
file
until
additional
his
$158,343.40
See O.C.G.A. § 18-4-63(a) (“Summons of
garnishment may issue from time to time on the same affidavit
until the judgment is paid or the garnishment proceeding is
otherwise terminated in accordance with this chapter.”).
During
Blach’s appeal, the Court permits the issuance of additional
summonses of garnishment filed by Blach to AFLAC.
AFLAC shall
answer
required
the
additional
Georgia law
registry.
each
and
summonses
within
the
time
deposit the garnished funds in this
by
Court’s
Diaz-Verson shall be permitted to file a traverse to
summons
of
garnishment
with
distribute the funds to him.
an
accompanying
motion
to
Any other creditor claiming an
3
interest in the garnished funds
may
intervene to assert its
claim to the proceeds deposited into the registry of this Court.
Blach may also file a motion for distribution.
The Court will
stay distribution of any funds garnished from the AFLAC payments
and deposited into its registry pending Diaz-Verson’s current
appeal.
CONCLUSION
The
Court
grants
Diaz-Verson’s
motion
for
stay
of
this
action to the extent described in this Order, and Diaz-Verson
shall not be required to post a supersedeas bond (ECF No. 16).
However, the motion is denied to the extent that he seeks to
have AFLAC withhold the garnished amounts and not pay them into
the registry of this Court.
In lieu of a supersedeas bond, the
Court orders AFLAC to remit the garnished $13,380.82 to this
Court within seven days of today’s Order.
The Court further
orders AFLAC to pay into the registry of this Court any future
amounts
garnished
through
Blach’s
additional
summonses.
If
AFLAC receives summonses of garnishment from other creditors of
Diaz-Verson seeking to garnish these same funds, AFLAC shall
indicate in its answer to the other creditors’ summonses that
the garnished funds have been paid into the registry of this
Court pursuant to the Order of this Court.
No funds will be
distributed from the registry of this Court until the presently
4
pending appeal is final or unless otherwise ordered by this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of April, 2016.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?