BLACH v. DIAZ-VERSON

Filing 400

ORDER granting 366 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; granting 370 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; denying 373 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; denying 376 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 379 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; denying 385 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; granting 389 Motion for Disbursement of Funds; denying 391 Motion for Disbursement of Funds Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 11/02/2018 (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
HAROLD BLACH,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

SAL DIAZ-VERSION,

*

Defendant.

CASE NO. 4:15-MC-5 (CDL)

*
O R D E R

Plaintiff Harold Blach holds a judgment against Defendant
Sal Diaz-Verson.
Diaz-Verson’s

Diaz-Verson has not satisfied the judgment.

former

employer,

AFLAC

Inc.,

makes

bimonthly

payments to Diaz-Verson, twenty-five percent of which is subject
to garnishment.
filing

monthly

AFLAC.

So, for the last three years, Blach has been
applications

for

writs

of

garnishment

against

Before Blach could start collecting on his judgment via

garnishment, Diaz-Verson’s former attorney, Robert Frey, laid
claim to the garnished funds, asserting that he had a superior
judgment

against

his

former

client.

The

Court

agreed

and

ordered disbursement of the garnished funds to Frey until his
judgment was satisfied.

After Frey’s judgment was satisfied and

Blach began receiving disbursements of the garnished funds, Frey
reentered the fray, this time representing Diaz-Verson’s ex-wife
Patricia.

Patricia argues that she has a judgment against Diaz-

Verson that is superior to Blach’s, and she filed third party
claims to the garnished funds.

The Court must now decide who

should receive the funds held in the Court’s registry that are
subject to the pending motions for disbursement of funds.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In

response

to

Blach’s

applications

for

writs

of

garnishment, the Clerk issued writs of garnishment (ECF No. 344
on 5/11/2018, ECF No. 356 on 6/6/2018, ECF No. 361 on 7/5/2018,
ECF

No.

368

garnishment
(Answer,

on
and

ECF No.

8/3/2018).
deposited

Answer,

$10,619.64

on

of

funds

answered

into

the

ECF

7/19/2018;

$10,619.64

on

No.

364

Answer,

7/10/2018,

ECF

No.

369

Answer,

not object to AFLAC’s Answers.
$48,103.56

ECF

deposit
on

of

registry

$16,244.64

on

8/15/2018;

writs

Court’s

9/6/2018, deposit of $10,619.64 on 9/14/2018).1

its registry,

those

359 on 6/21/2018, deposit of

6/29/2018;

deposit

AFLAC

on
of

8/8/2018,

No.

382

on

Diaz-Verson did

The Court holds $64,348.20 in

of which is subject to the pending

motions for disbursement.
DISCUSSION
Both Blach and Patricia hold judgments against Diaz-Verson.
The question for the Court is whose judgment has priority in
this garnishment action.

“It is clear that in Georgia, the

1

Another writ of garnishment was issued on August 29, 2018 (ECF No.
380).
AFLAC answered on 10/11/2018 (ECF No. 393) and deposited
$16,244.64 into the Court’s registry on 10/25/2018.
There is no
pending motion to disburse those funds.

2

relative position of judgment liens is determined by seniority;
an older Georgia judgment has priority over a newer judgment.”
NationsBank, N.A. v. Gibbons, 487 S.E.2d 417, 418–19 (Ga. Ct.
App. 1997); accord O.C.G.A. § 9-12-80 (“All judgments obtained
in the superior courts, magistrate courts, or other courts of
this state shall be of equal dignity and shall bind all the
property of the defendant in judgment, both real and personal,
from the date of such judgments[.]”).
Blach

obtained

a

judgment

for

$158,343.40

against

Diaz-

Verson on March 12, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.
Georgia on October 6, 2015.

He registered the judgment in
“Although a foreign judgment is

entitled to full faith and credit, to be enforced in Georgia it
must first be domesticated.”

Gibbons, 487 S.E.2d at 419.

A

foreign judgment cannot be enforced in Georgia and thus “cannot
acquire position relative to other liens” until it domesticated.
Id.

Therefore, the priority date of Blach’s judgment as it

relates to other Georgia judgments is October 6, 2015.
Patricia and Diaz-Verson divorced in 2011.

Pursuant to the

final judgment and decree entered on December 2, 2011, DiazVerson must pay Patricia alimony of $10,000 per month—$5,000 on
the first day of each month and $5,000 on the fifteenth day of
each

month—until

Patricia

dies

or

remarries.

Am.

Mot.

for

Distribution Ex. A, Final J. & Decree 1, ECF No. 376-1 at 1 &

3

Settlement Agreement ¶ 3, ECF No. 376-1 at 4-5.
living and has not remarried.

Patricia is

She claims that Diaz-Verson was

in arrears on her alimony payments in the amount of $96,000 as
of August 14, 2018.

Patricia Diaz-Verson Aff. (Aug. 14, 2018),

ECF No. 375.

She also appears to assert that Diaz-Verson did

not

alimony

make

any

Patricia

Diaz-Verson

payments
Aff.

after

(Sept.

August

20,

14,

2018),

2018.

ECF

See

No.

386

(claiming an arrearage of $111,000 as of September 20, 2018).
Patricia did not state when Diaz-Verson stopped making alimony
payments, but based on her affidavits, Diaz-Verson was nineteen
full payments and one partial payment behind as of August 14,
2018.

Thus, Diaz-Verson was current on his alimony payments

through October 2017.

Under the

final judgment and

decree,

Patricia could not institute continuing garnishment proceedings
against

Diaz-Verson

until

mid-November

2017,

when

the

unpaid

amount was “equal to or greater than the amount payable for one
month.”

Final J. & Decree 2, ECF No. 376-1 at 2.

Patricia argues that her claim to the garnished funds based
on the arrearages is superior to Blach’s judgment because her
claim relates back to the original date of her divorce decree,
December

2,

Patricia’s

2011.
claim

Blach,
can

take

on

the

priority

other
only

hand,
as

to

contends

that

Diaz-Verson’s

arrearage on the date of Blach’s judgment, which Blach asserts

4

was zero.

Both sides rely on the same case to answer this

question: Cale v. Hale, 277 S.E.2d 770 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).
In Cale, a couple was granted a final divorce in 1975, and
the wife was granted monthly alimony and child support.

In

March 1980, a creditor obtained a judgment against the husband.
Later

that

month,

the

wife

obtained

a

writ

of

fieri

facias

against the husband because he was in arrears on his monthly
alimony and child support payments.
garnished,
judgment

and
was

the

trial

entitled

to

court

The husband’s property was
found

priority

in

that
the

the

creditor’s

distribution

of

garnishment funds over the wife’s claim for unpaid alimony and
child support.

The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed.

The

Court of Appeals noted that certain divorce judgments are an
exception

to

the

rule

of

priority

under

O.C.G.A. §

9-12-80

because “a judgment for permanent alimony does not create a lien
for

future

monthly

installments

unless

a

lien

is

expressly

created against the property in the alimony judgment.”
277 S.E.2d at 772.

Cale,

But, the Court of Appeals remanded for

further proceedings in Cale because the wife had priority “in
that

portion

of

the

garnishment

fund

which

represents

[the

husband’s] arrearage on the date of [the creditor’s] judgment.”
Id.; accord Dee v. Sweet, 480 S.E.2d 316, 318 (Ga. Ct. App.
1997) (finding that the trial court did not err in concluding
that a judgment creditor had priority over a claim for unpaid

5

child

support

that

had

not

accrued

prior

to

the

judgment

creditor’s lien).
Under this precedent, Patricia only had priority “in that
portion of the garnishment fund which represents [Diaz-Verson’s]
arrearage on the date of [Blach’s] judgment.”
at 772.
funds,

Cale, 277 S.E.2d

Thus, to be entitled to a disbursement of the garnished
Patricia

was

required

to

establish

that

she

had

judgment lien against Diaz-Verson before October 6, 2015.
did not do so.

a
She

Patricia did not present any evidence that there

was an arrearage in alimony payments as of that date.

Based on

Patricia’s affidavits, Diaz-Verson was current on his alimony
payments through October 2017 because Patricia only claims that
he was nineteen full payments and one partial payment behind as
of

August

14,

2018.

Accordingly,

Patricia

does

not

have

priority over Blach in any portion of the present garnishment
fund.

Her motions for disbursement are denied, and Blach’s are

granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Patricia
Diaz-Verson’s motions for disbursement (ECF Nos. 373, 376, 385,
391).
Nos.

The Court grants Blach’s motions for disbursement (ECF
366,

370,

379,

389).

The

Clerk

is

instructed

to

enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff Harold Blach with regard to the
writs of garnishment issued on May 11, 2018 (ECF No. 344), June

6

6, 2018 (ECF No. 356), July 5, 2018 (ECF No. 361), and August 3,
2018 (ECF No. 368).

Fourteen days from the date of today’s

Order, the Clerk shall disburse to Blach $48,103.56, plus any
interest earned on that sum while it was held in the Court’s
registry, unless any party files a notice of appeal relating to
today’s rulings before that date.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of November, 2018.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

7