United States of America v. Bolds

Filing 40

ORDER denying deft's 36 Request for Hearing on Garnishment filed by Yohannes Bolds. (Hearing date of 7/26/17 is vacated) Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 06-15579
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
YOHANNES BOLDS,
Defendant,
and
ST. JOSEPH MERCY OAKLAND
HOSPITAL,
Garnishee.
/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR A GARNISHMENT HEARING [36]
This is a garnishment action. On December 14, 2006, Plaintiff United States of
America filed a Complaint against Defendant Yohannes Bolds, seeking recovery of
$5,245.21 in unpaid student loans. (Dkt. 1.) On September 20, 2007, this Court granted
summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor, awarding Plaintiff $5,245.21, plus pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest. (Dkt. 12.) On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff served a Writ of Continuing
Garnishment upon Garnishee St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital. (Dkt. 32.) Following
Garnishee's Answer, Defendant filed a request for a hearing on the Writ of Continuing
Garnishment, in which he claims that he has paid his debt in full. (Dkt. 36.) Defendant did
not request a hearing on Garnishee's Answer. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's
request for a garnishment hearing is DENIED.

28 U.S.C. § 3202(d) provides that courts shall hold a garnishment hearing when
requested by a judgment debtor. But in cases not involving a default judgment, the issues
at such a hearing are limited to: (1) "the probable validity of any claim of exemption by the
judgment debtor"; or (2) "compliance with any statutory requirement for the issuance of the
postjudgment remedy granted." Id. As a result, courts have denied hearings where the
debtor has not objected based on one of the issues listed in § 3202(d), where the objection
is plainly without merit, or where the objection is simply a matter of statutory interpretation.
United States v. Miller, 588 F. Supp. 2d 789, 797 (W.D. Mich. 2008).
Here, the only argument Defendant has raised -- that he has paid his debt in full -is plainly without merit, belied by his own submissions to the Court. As Defendant's
documentation indicates, Plaintiff has received only $2,581.25 from Defendant since the
2007 judgment awarded Plaintiff $5,245.21, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
(Dkt. 36, at 2-4.) That is not payment in full. Moreover, to the extent that Defendant may
be arguing that he paid his student loan debt before the 2007 judgment, that issue has
already been decided against him twice: (1) when the Court granted summary judgment
in Plaintiff's favor; and (2) when the Court rejected Defendant's motion for relief from
judgment. (See Dkt. 12; Dkt. 22; Dkt. 28.)
Given that Defendant's only objection to the Writ of Continuing Garnishment is plainly
without merit, the Court DENIES his request for a hearing.
SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge

2

Dated: July 12, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on July 12, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

3