Opinion
A. E. Radinsky, Hoffman, Goldstein & Armour, Abe L. Hoffman, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Sobol & Sobol, Harry Sobol, Bernard Sobol, Denver, for defendant in error.
ENOCH, Judge.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under authority vested in the Supreme Court.
This is a garnishment case which arose out of a suit by defendant in error, Nationwide Finance Company, against Milo L. and Edna M. Fisher. The plaintiff in error, Union Trust Company, was the garnishee below.
The Fishers owed slightly in excess of $1,100 to various creditors and were experiencing difficulty in meeting their obligations. They came to Union Trust Company apparently in response to a letter soliciting prospects for its debt adjustment scheme which promised them relief from their debts. The Fishers gave two notes to Union Trust totaling $1,000 for its promise to settle their accounts.
The Fishers owed $981.18 to Nationwide who refused to cooperate with the debt adjustment scheme of Union Trust. As a result of a suit by Nationwide, the Superior Court of Denver entered a default judgment in the amount of $981.18, plus $147.18 in costs and attorney's fees against the Fishers. A writ of garnishment was subwequently served by Nationwide on Union Trust attempting to attach all payments made by the Fishers on their notes to Union Trust. The Superior Court entered a default against Union Trust and subsequently issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum to 'A. E. Radinsky, Officer, Union Trust Company.' Union Trust then filed a motion to vacate the default and to quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum. Meanwhile, Nationwide moved for an entry of judgment against Union Trust. These motions were considered by the Superior Court at hearings in which A. E. Radinsky appeared as a witness for Union Trust, acted as attorney for Union Trust, as attorney for the Fishers, and as attorney, Pro se. The court denied the motions of Union Trust after listening to extensive argument. It cited Radinsky for contempt as a result of his evasive answers as a witness and because of his repeated failure to comply with the Subpoena Duces Tecum.
A detailed recitation of all the proceedings in this case would merely amount to a lesson in dilatory and confusing tactics and would not contribute to the substance of this opinion. Suffice it to say that the ultimate outcome was that the Superior Court entered judgment against the garnishee in the amount of $343.74. Union Trust had actually collected $380 from the Fishers. However, it claimed expenses of $36.26 on their behalf although the evidence showed that it had not satisfied any of their outstanding accounts. The court also exonerated Radinsky of the contempt charge when he finally complied with the Subpoena Duces Tecum.
Union Trust now seeks a reversal of the court's order sustaining the garnishment on default and of the entry of judgment for $343.74. It assigns a total of twelve errors, only one of which suggests any merit. We have reviewed the record of all the proceedings below and hold that if there were any procedural error in entering a default judgment on the garnishment, it was harmless error in that the issues which Union Trust claims were ignored by the court were again submitted and extensively argued in the hearing to vacate the default.
We hold that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.
Judgment affirmed.
DWYER and PIERCE, JJ., concur.