Prime Rate Premium Finance Corporation, Inc. v. Larson et al
ORDER ADOPTING 674 Report and Recommendation to Overrule Objection to Garnishment, and ORDER to Pay. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PRIME RATE PREMIUM FINANCE
Case Number 14-12397
Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand
KAREN E. LARSON, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
KEITH A. LARSON, Deceased, and
ADRIAN LEE CARRANZA,
BRANDON LARSON and INSUREPLEX
MARKET SOLUTIONS, INC.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO OVERRULE OBJECTION TO GARNISHMENT, AND ORDER TO PAY
Presently before the Court is the report issued on September 20, 2019 by Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court overrule the garnisheedefendant GP Insurance Agency Inc.’s objection to garnishment. Although the report stated that
the parties to this action could object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen
days of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file
objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object
to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 governs the seizure of a person or property to satisfy a
judgment. The rule provides that state law controls unless there is a federal statute to the contrary.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 64. Remedies available under the rule include arrest, garnishment, and attachment.
Ibid. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 also provides that money judgments and the enforcement
of them are controlled by state law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 64. In Michigan, garnishment objections are
covered by M.C.R. 3.101(K)(2), which provides that objections must be based on one or more of
the following: (a) the funds or property are exempt from garnishment by law; (b) garnishment is
precluded by the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings; (c) garnishment is barred by an installment
payment order; (d) garnishment is precluded because the maximum amount permitted by law is
being withheld under a higher priority garnishment or order; (e) the judgment has been paid; or (f)
the garnishment was not properly issued or is otherwise invalid.
GP Insurance did not articulate the specific basis for its objection to the garnishment under
M.C.R. 3.101(K)(2). Rather, it merely asserted that the garnishment was improper because its
Flagstar Bank account is a client trust account and not GP Insurance’s money. Even if such an
objection was recognized, GP Insurance failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of this
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
(ECF No. 674) is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the garnishee-defendant GP Insurance Agency Inc.’s
objection (ECF No. 652) is OVERRULED.
It is further ORDERED that Flagstar Bank shall release funds to the plaintiff under both
the initial writ of garnishment and the second writ, in the total amount of $25,701.03.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Date: October 8, 2019
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was
served upon each attorney or party of record herein by
electronic means or first-class U.S. mail on October 8, 2019.
s/Susan K. Pinkowski
SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI
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?