Antico v. Antico

8 Citing cases

  1. Morgan v. Morgan

    275 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 6 times

    Under the general constitutional attack here of lack of due process, we simply apply Easterwood v. LeBlanc, supra, and under the authority of Phillips v. State, 229 Ga. 313 ( 191 S.E.2d 61), and cases cited therein, we hold that there is no merit in the defendant's claims of lack of constitutionality in the application of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of both Constitutions and the law as shown by the evidence. This is a garnishment of wages, which has been held to be constitutional in Wilson v. Grimes, 232 Ga. 388 ( 207 S.E.2d 5). See also Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294 ( 244 S.E.2d 820). 2.

  2. Black v. Black

    245 Ga. 281 (Ga. 1980)   Cited 14 times

    This court has also specifically approved garnishment of wages to satisfy alimony orders or judgments as being procedures which meet the demands of due process. Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294 ( 244 S.E.2d 820) (1978). Appellee has filed in this court a motion for damages asking that attorney fees be assessed against appellant because of the frivolous nature of the appeal. This motion is denied.

  3. Fidelity National Bank v. Km General Agency, Inc.

    262 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    1. The bank's contentions that Code Ann. §§ 46-103 and 46-508 violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions by denying the bank the opportunity to answer before 30 days have elapsed since service and by providing for automatic default are wholly lacking in merit. See Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294 ( 244 S.E.2d 820) (1978). 2.

  4. Stewart v. Stewart

    160 Ga. App. 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    Williamson v. State, 138 Ga. App. 306, 307 ( 226 S.E.2d 102). The conduct of the custodian cannot deprive the child of this right to support, any more than the custodian can waive it for the child or contract it away. See Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294, 295 ( 244 S.E.2d 820). See Crumb v. Gordon, 157 Ga. App. 839 ( 278 S.E.2d 725). Code Ann. § 24-305b does not provide otherwise.

  5. Brown v. Wilson Chevrolet-Olds

    258 S.E.2d 139 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 27 times

    Di-Chem served as the backdrop for a fascinating scenario with the legislature, the Supreme Court, and this court trooping across the stage in bewildering succession pursuing that evanescent runaway forever disappearing into the wings, garnishment due process. The major chapters in addition to Di-Chem, supra are reported in Coursin v. Harper, 236 Ga. 729 ( 225 S.E.2d 428) (1976); City Finance Co. v. Winston, 238 Ga. 10 ( 231 S.E.2d 45) (1976); J. Scott Rentals, Inc. v. Bryant, 239 Ga. 585 ( 238 S.E.2d 385) (1977); Easterwood v. LeBlanc, 240 Ga. 61 ( 239 S.E.2d 383) (1977); Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294 ( 244 S.E.2d 820) (1978). The peripheral actions are too numerous to mention.

  6. Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency Serv

    486 U.S. 825 (1988)   Cited 882 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that ERISA did not pre-empt a state garnishment procedure despite petitioners’ contention that such actions would impose "substantial administrative burdens and costs" on plans

    See Ga. Code Ann. § 18-4-60 (1982). This analysis is reinforced by the fact that, under the Georgia statute, a garnishor can obtain a writ of garnishment for the purpose of executing the judgments of either the state or federal courts sitting in Georgia, ibid., and by the Georgia Supreme Court's description of postgarnishment actions as "procedural," see, e. g., Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294, 244 S.E.2d 820, 821 (1978); Easterwood v. LeBlanc, 240 Ga. 61, 239 S.E.2d 383, 383-384 (1977). Such is the usual understanding of garnishment.

  7. McCahey v. L.P. Investors

    774 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1985)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that New York's "Notice to Judgment Debtors" satisfied due process by specifying that a procedure existed to adjudicate exemption claims and advising debtors to contact an attorney, even though the notice did not inform judgment debtors of the specific steps to be taken to test exemption claims

    itutional); Harris v. Bailey, 574 F.Supp. 966 (W.D.Va. 1983) (Virginia remedies unconstitutional); Deary v. Guardian Loan Company, 534 F.Supp. 1178 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (New York remedies held unconstitutional); Community Thrift Club, Inc. v. Dearborn Acceptance Corp., 487 F.Supp. 877 (N.D.Ill. 1980) (Illinois wage garnishment unconstitutional); Betts v. Tom, 431 F.Supp. 1369 (D.Hawaii 1977) (Hawaii remedies held unconstitutional); Huggins v. Deinhard, 134 Ariz. 98, 654 P.2d 32 (1982) (Arizona remedies constitutional); In Re Marriage of Wyshak, 70 Cal.App.3d 384, 138 Cal.Rptr. 811 (1977) (California remedies constitutional); Taylor v. Madigan, 53 Cal.App.3d 943, 126 Cal. Rptr. 376 (1976) (California remedies constitutional); Gedeon v. Gedeon, 630 P.2d 579 (Colo. 1981) (Colorado remedies constitutional); Coursin v. Harper, 236 Ga. 729, 225 S.E.2d 428 (1976) (Georgia remedies unconstitutional); City Finance Co. v. Winston, 238 Ga. 10, 231 S.E.2d 45 (1976) (Georgia remedies unconstitutional); Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294, 244 S.E.2d 820 (1978) (Georgia revised remedies constitutional); Wanex v. Provident State Bank, 53 Md. App. 409, 454 A.2d 381 (1983) (Maryland remedies constitutional); Warren v. Delaney, 98 A.D.2d 799, 469 N.Y.S.2d 975 (1983) (New York remedies unconstitutional); Cole v. Goldberger, Pedersen Hochron, 95 Misc.2d 720, 410 N.Y.S.2d 950 (1978) (New York remedies unconstitutional); Mullins v. Main Bank Trust, 592 S.W.2d 24 (Tex.Civ. App. 1979) (Texas remedies constitutional). Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U.S. 220, 66 S.Ct. 556, 90 L.Ed. 635 (1946), involved the collection of past-due alimony payments arising out of a divorce decree.

  8. Strickland v. Alexander

    153 F. Supp. 3d 1397 (N.D. Ga. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Finally, defendant and the State point out that the Georgia Supreme Court and the Georgia Court of Appeals have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the current form of Georgia's post-judgment garnishment statute. Br. in Support of Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Doc. 90–1] at 16 (citing Antico v. Antico, 241 Ga. 294, 244 S.E.2d 820 (1978) ; Easterwood v. LeBlanc, 240 Ga. 61, 239 S.E.2d 383 (1977) ; Apex Supply Co. v. Johnny Long Homes, Inc., 143 Ga.App. 699, 240 S.E.2d 171 (1977) ; Morgan v. Morgan, 156 Ga.App. 726, 275 S.E.2d 673 (1980) ); State's Br. [Doc. 98] at 8 (citing Antico, Easterwood, and Black v. Black, 245 Ga. 281, 264 S.E.2d 216 (1980) ). None of these cases, however, raised the issues of notice and timeliness regarding exemptions and claim procedures that are presented in this case. Therefore, they offer no support for the constitutionality of these aspects of the statute.