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