Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons & Plasterers Health & Welfare Trust et al v. O-CO Concrete Construction LLC et al
ORDER OF DISCHARGE signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik re 5 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Western Washington Cement Masons Journeyman and Apprenticeship Training Trust, Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons & Plasterers Health & Welfare Trust, Cement Masons and Plasterers Retirement Trust. (RE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CEMENT
MASONS & PLASTERERS HEALTH &
WELFARE TRUST, et al.,
ORDER OF DISCHARGE
O-CO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION,
ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Judgment on
Garnishee Defendant’s Answer to Writ of Garnishment and Order of Disbursal.” Dkt. # 5. Under
Washington’s garnishment statutes, in order for a debt to be recoverable from a third-party
garnishee, the debt must be owing to the judgement debtor at the time of the writ of garnishment
is served upon the garnishee. RCW 6.27.240; Dkt. # 3 at 2 (directing the garnishee to hold any
debt or property “owed to defendant at the time this writ was served”). “The rights of a
garnisheeing creditor are no greater than those of his debtor, and, if the debtor cannot recover the
ORDER OF DISCHARGE - 1
alleged debt in an action against the garnishee defendant, his creditor is under a similar
disability.” Sundberg v. Boeing Airplane Co., 52 Wn.2d 734, 737 (1958). Where, as here, the
garnishee represents that the debt is contingent on the satisfaction of specific events that had not
occurred at the time the writ was served, the garnishment lien does not attach to the retained
percentage (or retainage) held by the garnishee. Dkt. # 4. If the judgment creditors wanted to
challenge the garnishee’s representation, they were required to file an affidavit controverting the
answer of the garnishee within twenty days. RCW 6.27.240. See also Watkins v. Peterson
Enterprises, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 632, 648 (1999). (“RCW 6.27.240 in turn determines whether a
garnishee is actually indebted to or holds property of the debtor. If it appears from the
garnishee’s answer that the garnishee was neither indebted to nor held property belonging to the
debtor, and if neither the debtor nor creditor controverts the garnishee’s answer, then the
garnishee is discharged with no further liability under the writ of garnishment. RCW 6.27.210
and .240. In such case, the writ of garnishment is unsuccessful since the writ has found no
garnishable income or property held by the garnishee.”).
There being to affidavit on file, the motion for entry of judgment on the garnishee’s
answer is DENIED and the garnishee is hereby DISCHARGED from this action with no further
liability pursuant to RCW 6.27.240. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action.
Dated this 17th day of November, 2022.
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
ORDER OF DISCHARGE - 2
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?