Date: 08-07-2001

Case Style: Rice v. American Communications

Case Number: 94,910

Judge: Goodman

Court: Oklahoma Court of Appeals

Plaintiff's Attorney: D. Lynn Babb of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellees

Defendant's Attorney: Odell D. Campbell and Larry A. Morgan of Morgan and Morgan, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellants

Description: 1 This is the appeal of American Communications Consultants of North America, Inc., and Tele-Solutions, Inc., from the trial court's June 22, 2000, order which held, among other things, that certain sums held by third party Hertz Technologies, Inc., (Hertz) were subject to the garnishment action of Richard Rice d/b/a Costwatch Consulting Group (Costwatch). Based upon our review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm.

FACTS

2 American Communications (American) and Tele-Solutions (Tele-Solutions) are long-distance telephone service providers. Costwatch was one of their sales agents. Costwatch sold long-distance services, and generated over $80,000 in commissions. When American and Tele-Solutions failed to pay Costwatch the commissions, Costwatch arbitrated the matter in Colorado, eventually obtaining a judgment of $80,000, plus interest. The District Court for Boulder County, Colorado, executed the arbitration judgment January 31, 2000.

3 Costwatch filed the Colorado judgment in Oklahoma County District Court March 13, 2000, as a foreign judgment. On April 10, 2000, Costwatch filed a garnishment affidavit, alleging that Hertz Technologies (Hertz) was indebted to, or had property belonging to, American and Tele-Solutions. Hertz answered the garnishment, stating that while it did owe money to American and Tele-Solutions, it did not know the exact amount at the time of its answer. Further, it alleged some of the money owed to American and Tele-Solutions may belong to other entities. In a pleading filed May 24, 2000, Hertz reported it owed $11,696.18 to Tele-Solutions, but owed no fees to American.1

4 Tele-Solutions subsequently filed a pleading stating that it was an agent of certain other third parties, and the money Tele-Solutions was owed by Hertz represented the commissions owed to those third parties, and did not belong to Tele-Solutions. In other words, Tele-Solutions claimed that the moneys owed to it by Hertz belonged not to Tele-Solutions, but to the principals that Tele-Solutions represented. Therefore Tele-Solutions claimed the money owed to it was exempt from Costwatch's garnishment action.

5 Following evidentiary hearings on May 26, and June 9, 2000, the trial court concluded that the money in Hertz' possession which was owed to Tele-Solutions was not exempt from Costwatch's garnishment action. Tele-Solutions appeals.

* * *

9 In Culie, 1988 OK 134 at 5, 765 P.2d at 1205, the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated:

In a garnishment proceeding the judgment creditor stands in the shoes of the judgment debtor to enforce a liability owed to the latter by a third party __ the garnishee. The former may claim no greater rights against the garnishee than the latter himself possesses.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: E-mail suggested corrections, comments and/or corrections to: Kent Morlan

Welcome Video