BlogLine

Jurisdictional pitfalls in garnishment actions: Lessons from RBC Global Asset Management v. Lattimore

12/4/24

By: Brian Goldberg

The Georgia Supreme Court’s recent decision in RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.), Inc. v. Lattimore (S24A0789) highlights the critical importance of proper service in garnishment actions and the far-reaching consequences of using incorrect summons forms. This case serves as a stark reminder for litigants to ensure compliance with statutory requirements, as procedural missteps can invalidate an entire garnishment action. 

Case Background 

Markisha Lattimore obtained a $20 million judgment against Kim Brothers Kickin’ Kids, LLC (“Kickin’ Kids”). Rather than pursue traditional post-judgment remedies against Kickin’ Kids, Lattimore initiated garnishment actions against twelve financial entities, including RBC Global Asset Management (Global), using a statutory “Summons for Garnishment on a Financial Institution” form. 

Global, a registered investment adviser, determined it held no funds for Kickin’ Kids but failed to respond to the summons. Consequently, the trial court entered a default judgment against Global for the full $20 million judgment plus interest. Global later moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing that Lattimore used the wrong summons form and failed to obtain personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, but the Supreme Court reversed, agreeing with Global. 

Key Issues on Appeal 

The Supreme Court addressed three pivotal questions: 

Did Lattimore use the correct garnishment summons form? To this question, the court held that Lattimore used the wrong form. The garnishment statutes provide different summons forms for general garnishments and garnishments against financial institutions. Global, as a registered investment adviser, does not fall within the statutory definition of a “financial institution,” which includes banks, credit unions, and entities holding funds for deposit or savings. Global’s business model—advising institutional clients and managing investment portfolios without custody of funds—excluded it from the definition. 

Using the incorrect form rendered the garnishment invalid. OCGA § 18-4-7(d) explicitly provides that when the wrong form is used, the garnishment is invalid, and the garnishee is relieved of all liability. 

Next, the court addressed whether Lattimore obtained personal jurisdiction over Global. Proper service is a prerequisite for personal jurisdiction. Because Lattimore used the wrong summons form, service was insufficient, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Global. The court reaffirmed the principle that actual notice does not cure defective service or confer jurisdiction. 

Finally, the court answered whether Global’s jurisdictional defense was waived. The court clarified that Global’s failure to answer the summons did not waive its right to challenge personal jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 9-11-60(d), a motion to set aside a judgment for lack of jurisdiction is always permissible if service was insufficient. 

Practical Implications 

This case underscores several crucial lessons for attorneys and litigants: 

Ensure Proper Use of Summons Forms: The Georgia garnishment statutes are highly specific about the forms required for different types of garnishees. Attorneys must carefully analyze the statutory definitions of entities like “financial institutions” before selecting the appropriate summons form. 

Defective Service Invalidates Garnishments: Service errors are not minor procedural missteps—they go to the heart of the court’s jurisdiction. Using the wrong summons form voids the garnishment and any resulting judgment, as this case vividly demonstrates. 

Jurisdictional Defenses Are Not Waived by Silence: Even if a garnishee does not respond to a summons, it can later challenge jurisdiction if the summons was improper. The court’s decision affirms that insufficient service cannot be waived by inaction. 

Conclusion 

The decision in RBC Global Asset Management v. Lattimore is a clear warning about the procedural precision required in garnishment actions. For creditors, this means carefully verifying the nature of the garnishee before initiating action. For garnishees, it reinforces the importance of promptly challenging procedural defects to avoid costly default judgments. 

At Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, we help clients navigate complex post-judgment collection strategies, ensuring strict compliance with Georgia’s garnishment statutes. If you’re pursuing or defending a garnishment, please contact Brian Goldberg at brian.goldberg@fmglaw.com today to safeguard your rights and avoid jurisdictional pitfalls.