Parkville Federal Savings Bank v. Maryland National Bank

CHASANOW, Judge. We are called upon in this case to determine whether a writ of garnishment issued pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-645 is effective to attach the property of judgment debtors not named in the writ, but listed on an attached pleading prepared by the judgment creditor. We hold that the writ of garnishment issued in the instant case was not sufficient to attach the property of debtors not identified on the writ itself. I. In March of 1993, Parkville Federal Savings Bank (Park-ville) obtained judgments against four defendants: People’s Transportation, Inc., Quality Plus, Inc., Peter R. Schanck and Charles G. Fagan.

Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-645, Parkville filed a request for a writ of garnishment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The request was date stamped March 18, 1993 and sought a writ of garnishment (writ) of any property held by Maryland National Bank (Maryland National) that was owned by any of the four judgment debtors. The clerk issued a writ on March 23,1993. ⁴¹⁶ The writ consisted of a form captioned “CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY * * * WRIT OF GARNISHMENT OF PROPERTY” with various blank spaces where the clerk typed the required information. In the space provided for “Defendant/Judgment Debtor” the clerk entered “People’s Transportation, Inc., et al.” The only address of the judgment debtor provided on the form was “16101 Chargin Blvd., Shaker Heights, Ohio, 44120,” the address for People’s Transportation.

The writ did not name any of the other three debtors listed in the request, or provide any of their addresses. The writ was served on Maryland National on March 26, 1993. Stapled to the writ was a copy of the request, which listed the names and addresses of the three other judgment debtors not identified on the writ itself. After being served with the writ and attached request, Maryland National filed a plea of nulla bona, asserting that it did not have in its possession any assets owned by People’s Transportation.

Maryland National did not respond regarding any assets owned by the other three debtors who were listed on the attached request. After the plea was filed, counsel for Parkville contacted Maryland National’s counsel and inquired as to why Maryland National had not filed an answer with respect to any of the judgment debtors that, although not identified on the writ, were listed in the attached request. Maryland National advised Parkville that it was not required to respond regarding the assets of debtors that were not named on the writ itself. Shortly thereafter, Parkville filed a motion for an order of default, arguing that Maryland National was in default for failing to file an answer concerning the assets of the other three debtors: Quality Plus, Inc., Peter R. Schanck and Charles G. Fagan.

The circuit court granted the motion on May 26, 1993 and entered an order of default against Maryland National. Maryland National subsequently filed a motion to vacate the order of default, contending that it was only required to answer for People’s Transportation, not for the other debtors who were not listed on the face of the writ. The circuit court granted Maryland National’s motion on Septem ⁴¹⁷ ber 2, 1993, but also ordered Maryland National to file an answer as to any assets owned by Quality Plus, Inc. 1 Maryland National complied, filing a supplemental answer, which indicated that Quality Plus had an account at Maryland National that contained $13,473.09 at the time of the service of the writ. Maryland National also acknowledged that an additional $50,044.43 passed through the Quality Plus account after the service of the writ.

The supplemental answer indicated that none of the funds remained in the account. Parkville moved for summary judgment against Maryland National in May of 1994, contending that Maryland National had improperly released a total of $61,902.47 2 from the Quality Plus account in violation of the writ, and hence was liable to Parkville for the full amount released. Maryland National filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable to Parkville because the writ had not sufficiently identified Quality Plus as a judgment debtor. After a hearing, the circuit court granted Parkville’s motion and entered judgment against Maryland National for $61,902.47 plus $4,543.36 in pre-judgment interest.

Maryland National appealed to the Court of Special Appeals on the sole question of whether the writ served on Maryland National required the bank to garnish the funds in the Quality Plus account. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court, holding that the writ served on Maryland National did not adequately identify Quality Plus as a judgment debtor, and hence Maryland National was not required to hold the funds in the Quality Plus account based on the writ. Maryland National v. Parkville Federal, 105 Md.App. 611 , ⁴¹⁸ 660 A.2d 1043 (1995). We granted Parkville’s petition for certiorari.

II

A. A writ of garnishment is a means of enforcing a judgment. It allows a judgment creditor to recover property owned by the debtor but held by a third party. See Paul V. Niemeyer and Linda M. Schuett, Maryland Rules Commentary at 518 (2nd ed. 1992). As this Court explained in Fico, Inc. v. Ghingher, 287 Md. 150 , 411 A.2d 430 (1980): “A garnishment proceeding is, in essence, an action by the judgment debtor for the benefit of the judgment creditor which is brought against a third party, the garnishee, who holds the assets of the judgment debtor.

An attaching judgment creditor is subrogated to the rights of the judgment debtor and can recover only by the same right and to the same extent that the judgment debtor might recover. The judgment itself is conclusive proof of the judgment debtor’s obligation to the judgment creditor. The sole purpose of the garnishment proceeding therefore is to determine whether the garnishee had any funds, property or credits which belong to the judgment debtor.” (Citations omitted). 287 Md. at 159 , 411 A.2d at 436 . A judgment creditor may obtain a writ of garnishment by filing a request for a writ with the clerk of the circuit court.

Md. Rule 2-645(b). The request must include: (1) the caption of the action in which the judgment was obtained; (2) the amount owed under the judgment; (3) the name and last known address of the judgment debtor; and (4) the name and address of the party holding the property (the garnishee). Id. Upon the filing of the request, the clerk is required to issue a writ.

Id. The writ is to contain all of the information in the request, including the name and address of the judgment debtor, as well as the name and address of the person requesting the writ, and the date of issue. Md. Rule 2-645(c). ⁴¹⁹ Once obtained and properly served on the garnishee, a writ of garnishment requires the garnishee to take positive action by holding the property until the entry of judgment in the garnishment action. Fico, 287 Md. at 162 , 411 A.2d at 437 .

See also Flat Iron v. Foley, 90 Md.App. 281, 292 , 600 A.2d 1156, 1161 , cert. denied, 327 Md. 79 , 607 A.2d 921 (1992). Hence, if the garnishee surrenders the property after service of the writ but prior to judgment, the garnishee is liable to the judgment creditor for the value of the debtor’s property released. Bedding Co. v. Warehouse Co., 146 Md. 479, 492 , 126 A. 902, 907 (1924); Flat Iron, 90 Md.App. at 292 , 600 A.2d at 1161 . B. The sole question before us is whether the writ served on Maryland National on March 26, 1993 required the bank to hold the property of Quality Plus, even though the single-page form prepared by the clerk identified the judgment debtor as “People’s Transportation, Inc., et al.” and Quality Plus was listed as a debtor only on the attached request for the writ.

In other words, we must determine whether the writ consisted of the single-page form prepared by the clerk, or whether the writ included the single-page form plus the attached request. Parkville argues that the single-page form prepared by the clerk was merely a judicial “cover sheet,” and that the writ itself actually consisted of the form as well as the attached copy of Parkville’s request for the writ. Parkville contends that the presence of “et al.” on the form after People’s Transportation provided notice to Maryland National that other judgment debtors were included in the writ. Because the attached request listed Quality Plus as a judgment debtor, and provided the address for Quality Plus, Parkville contends that the writ required Maryland National to hold the assets of Quality Plus.

Parkville asserts that “all that was necessary to have avoided entirely the dispute represented by this case was for Maryland National simply to read that which was served upon it.” ⁴²⁰ Conversely, Maryland National argues that only the single-page form prepared by the clerk constituted the writ of garnishment. Because that single sheet listed only one judgment debtor, People’s Transportation, Maryland National contends it was required only to answer for property owned by that creditor. Maryland National argues that the use of “et al.” on the writ was insufficient to incorporate the information in the attached request, which was prepared by Parkville and bore no indication of approval from the clerk of court. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with Maryland National, explaining: “Parkville Federal’s argument is not supported by the language of Md. Rule 2-645.

Maryland Rule 2-645 specifically requires that the writ contain the name of the judgement debtor. It is not sufficient that the writ contains a veiled reference to another document that supplies