Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons & Plasterers Health & Welfare Trust et al v. O-CO Concrete Construction LLC et al

Filing 7

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)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CEMENT
MASONS & PLASTERERS HEALTH &
WELFARE TRUST, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

15
16

ORDER OF DISCHARGE

v.
O-CO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION,
LLC,

13
14

NO. MC22-0084RSL

Defendant,
v.
ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Garnishee-Defendant.

17
18
19
20

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Judgment on

21

Garnishee Defendant’s Answer to Writ of Garnishment and Order of Disbursal.” Dkt. # 5. Under

22

Washington’s garnishment statutes, in order for a debt to be recoverable from a third-party

23

garnishee, the debt must be owing to the judgement debtor at the time of the writ of garnishment

24
25
26
27
28

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

1

alleged debt in an action against the garnishee defendant, his creditor is under a similar

2

disability.” Sundberg v. Boeing Airplane Co., 52 Wn.2d 734, 737 (1958). Where, as here, the

3

garnishee represents that the debt is contingent on the satisfaction of specific events that had not

4
5

occurred at the time the writ was served, the garnishment lien does not attach to the retained

6

percentage (or retainage) held by the garnishee. Dkt. # 4. If the judgment creditors wanted to

7

challenge the garnishee’s representation, they were required to file an affidavit controverting the

8

answer of the garnishee within twenty days. RCW 6.27.240. See also Watkins v. Peterson

9

Enterprises, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 632, 648 (1999). (“RCW 6.27.240 in turn determines whether a

10
11
12

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

13

debtor, and if neither the debtor nor creditor controverts the garnishee’s answer, then the

14

garnishee is discharged with no further liability under the writ of garnishment. RCW 6.27.210

15

and .240. In such case, the writ of garnishment is unsuccessful since the writ has found no

16
17
18
19
20

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.

21
22

Dated this 17th day of November, 2022.

23

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER OF DISCHARGE - 2