Opinion
Case No.: JFM-07-00108.
February 21, 2008
MEMORANDUM
This case is before the Court on a motion for judgment and dismissal of the Writs of Execution for Property Garnishments by the Cadle Company ("Cadle") filed by the four garnishees, Buffy Cafritz ("Buffy"), William Cafritz ("William"), Buffy Cafritz Trust ("Buffy Trust"), and William Cafritz Trust ("William Trust"). For the reasons that follow, garnishees' motions to dismiss will be granted.
The judgment underlying this garnishment action is a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruling in favor of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with Cadle as its assignee, against several defendants, including Janet Chipman ("Chipman"), in the amount of $356,453.58. ( See Docket No. 1.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), the procedure for executions of a judgment, such as a writ of garnishment, "shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which the district court is held, existing at the time the remedy is sought . . ." As such, Maryland law — specifically Maryland Rule 2-645 "Garnishment of Property" — applies to the instant action.
The Writs of Execution for Property Garnishment by Cadle against each of the four alleged garnishees, naming Chipman as the judgment donor, were issued on September 10, 2007 and served on October 2, 2007. (Docket Nos. 18-25.) On October 24, 2007, which was within the 30-day window imposed by Maryland Rule 2-645(e), all four garnishees filed answers in the form of Pleas of Nulla Bona, denying that they were indebted to Chipman. See Md. R. 2-645(e) ("The answer shall admit or deny that the garnishee is indebted to the judgment debtor . . ."); see also Md. R. 2-321(a) (setting the 30-day window for answers).
Following a garnishee's answer denying that he is in possession of the judgment debtor's property, a garnishor must "file a reply contesting the answer" within 30 days or else "the matters set forth in the answer shall be treated as established for the purpose of the garnishment proceeding." Md. R. 2-645(g). To avail themselves of that rule, along with their answers, the garnishees filed motions "request[ing] that judgment be entered in [their] favor and that the . . . action be dismissed upon the expiration of 30 days from the filing" of their answers. (Defs.' Mots. for J. Dismissal at 2.) As Cadle concedes, it did not file a Reply as to Buffy and William Cafritz in their individual capacities (Pl.'s Answer to Mots. for J. Dismissal at ¶ 3), and those actions will be dismissed pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-645(g).
With respect to the William Cafritz Trust and the Buffy Cafritz Trust, on November 6, 2007, Cadle filed a timely Reply to the Trusts' answers and an Answer to the Trusts' motions to dismiss or for judgment. Cadle's Reply stated — without elaboration — that it "contests the Answers filed by the William Cafritz Trust and the Buffy Cafritz Trust . . ." (Pl.'s Reply at 1.) Cadle argues that "since [it] filed a timely Reply Contesting the Answers of [William Trust and Buffy Trust], the action against them is not dismissible but would proceed as if it where [sic] an original action between Cadle" and the Trusts. (Pl.'s Answer to Mots. at 1.) Garnishees counter that the Reply is a pleading and thus "subject to the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 . . ." (Defs.' Reply at 3.) Accordingly, garnishees argue that the Writs of Execution should be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
As the Commentary to the Maryland Rules makes clear, where "the garnishee contests the writ, [Rule 2-645] provides the procedure for resolving the dispute." Paul V. Niemeyer et. al., Maryland Rules Commentary 568 (3d ed. 2003). This procedure for resolution begins with the garnishor's Reply. Id. at 570 ("The reply is a pleading and it brings the case to issue for resolution by a trial or otherwise. . . . Once at issue, the judgement creditor becomes the plaintiff for all further proceedings and the garnishee a defendant."). As a logical corollary, the Reply that plaintiff (formerly garnishor) files contesting a denial by garnishee acts as a complaint, providing the first opportunity to notify the garnishee of the property allegedly at issue. See id. at 571 ("Conceptually, the reply is the complaint that challenges the answer to the garnishment writ.").
Because the Reply is to be treated as a complaint, garnishees are entitled to have their motions to dismiss granted on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must provide "fair notice" and the "grounds" on which the claim rests. Rule 11(b)(3) further requires that any pleading presented to the court include allegations which have evidentiary support or are "likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation." As garnishees point out, Cadle "has never submitted a single pleading asserting that the Garnishee Trusts have any property of the judgment debtor." (Defs.' Reply at 2.) Cadle has thus neither placed garnishees on fair notice of the grounds upon which the claim against them rests nor provided any hint of evidentiary support for their contentions.
Accordingly, garnishees' motions to dismiss the Writs of Execution for Property Garnishments are granted.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum it is, this 21st day of February 2008
ORDERED that the Garnishees motions to dismiss are granted.