BLACH v. DIAZ-VERSON

Filing 475

ORDER granting 471 Motion for Disbursement of Funds to the extent set forth in the Order. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 10/17/19 (CCL)

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

*
*

vs.

*

SAL DIAZ-VERSON,

*

Defendant.

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

*

O R D E R
The Court holds $27,377.32 in its registry pursuant to the
writs of garnishment that were issued on April 18, 2019 (ECF No.
449) and May 29, 2019 (ECF No. 460).

Sal Diaz-Verson filed an

unopposed motion for disbursement of those garnished funds.

It

appeared to the Court that Harold Blach had a small balance
remaining on his judgment against Diaz-Verson.1

So, although

Blach did not oppose Diaz-Verson’s motion for disbursement or
file a motion for disbursement before the Court decided DiazVerson’s motion, the Court permitted him to file one last motion
for disbursement.

Order 2 (Aug. 20, 2019), ECF No. 467.

The

Court emphasized that if Blach wished to recover the costs he
sought in addition to the small outstanding principal balance,
he must provide proof of those costs and authority that they are
recoverable.
1

In addition, Diaz-Verson’s ex-wife Patricia Diaz-Verson filed claims
to funds deposited pursuant to prior writs of garnishment.
All her
claims have been withdrawn. See Withdrawal of Claims, ECF No. 474.

Blach asserts that Georgia law permits him to recover his
filing fees because the statutory form for the Clerk of Court to
use in issuing a summons of garnishment has a space for the
Clerk to insert the amount of court costs due on the summons.
O.C.G.A.

§

18-4-74.

In

addition,

the

statutory

form

for

affidavits of garnishment has a space for the affiant to state
what portion of the balance due is costs.
Diaz-Verson

does

not

seriously

dispute

O.C.G.A. § 18-4-71.
that

these

required

statutory forms would permit Blach to recover the $46.00 court
cost that was required to have the summons of garnishment issued
in this action and in the other garnishment actions that were
consolidated into it (4:16-mc-1, 4:16-mc-2, 4:16-mc-6, 4:16-mc7).2

Based on the Court’s review of the dockets, Blach paid the

$46.00 filing fee in each of these actions, he included that
cost

in

the

actions,

and

affidavits
at

least

of

some

garnishment
of

the

that

summonses

initiated
of

the

garnishment

stated that $46.00 in court costs were due on the summonses.
Thus, Blach was permitted to apply the disbursements to the
$230.00 in court costs that were required to have this Court
issue the summonses of garnishment.

2

Blach also seeks to recover the filing fee for 4:15-mc-4, the case
that Blach filed to register his judgment in this Court.
That case
was closed, no summons of garnishment was issued, and his garnishment
actions were separate.
Blach did not point to authority that he is
entitled to recover the filing fee for 4:15-mc-4.

2

Blach also asserts that he incurred $691.00 in filing fees
in two Gwinnett County actions and one Fulton County action that
resulted in garnishment of Diaz-Verson’s funds and disbursement
to his creditors, including Blach.

But in his present motion

for disbursement, Blach did not point to any documentation that
such costs were included in his affidavits of garnishment in
those actions or that the summonses of garnishment in those
actions stated that such costs were due on the summonses.
Court

has

repeatedly

instructed

Blach

that

if

he

wished

recover costs, he must provide documentation of them.

The
to

Without

such documentation, the Court declines to award Blach the costs
he says are associated with the three state court actions.
Based on the Court’s calculations, which only apply the
disbursement proceeds to principal, interest, and the $230.00 in
costs incurred in garnishment proceedings in this Court, the
outstanding principal balance and accrued interest on Blach’s
judgment is $458.97.

The Clerk shall disburse to Harold Blach

$458.97 and shall enter judgment in his favor on that amount
with regard to the writ of garnishment that was issued on April
18, 2019 (ECF No. 449).

Blach’s judgment against Diaz-Verson

has now been satisfied.

All remaining funds in the Court’s

registry shall be returned to Diaz-Verson.

The Clerk shall

enter judgment in Diaz-Verson’s favor as to the May 29, 2019

3

(ECF No. 460) writ and the remaining amount on the April 18,
2019 writ.

The Clerk shall close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of October, 2019.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4