Hillcrest Medical Center v. Monroy11/27/2001
Modified: 01/16/2002
Mandate Issued: 01/11/2002
__ P.3d __
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE BRADFORD GRIFFITH, TRIAL JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
The trial court defendant, Nadine M. Monroy (Monroy), appeals a decision which refused to retroactively refund to her the wages garnished by the trial court plaintiff, Hillcrest Medical Center (Hillcrest).
BACKGROUND
The essential facts are not disputed. Hillcrest holds a money judgment against Monroy which it obtained by default on May 16, 2000. On June 19, 2000, Hillcrest issued a one-time garnishment of Monroy's wages. Monroy filed a claim for exemption but failed to appear for the hearing on the claim. Consequently, the court denied the claim.
Thereafter, Hillcrest issued a continuing wage garnishment on July 13, 2000. Between July 13, 2000 and November 13, 2000, sundry amounts were withheld from Monroy's wages pursuant to the garnishment and paid to Hillcrest.
On October 31, 2000, Monroy filed a motion to exempt wages from garnishment on the ground of hardship. At the hearing on this motion, Monroy also requested a refund of all sums garnished under the continuing garnishment.
The trial court found that Monroy was presently, and for the future, entitled to an exemption of wages from garnishment on hardship grounds. The garnishment was stayed; however, the court denied, in part, Monroy's request for a refund. The court did direct a refund of the wages taken by garnishment from October 30, 2000, through the date of the hearing.
Monroy now appeals the court's decision which denied the full refund. The remaining aspects of the trial court's decision were not appealed by either party.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Where the facts are not disputed an appeal presents only a question of law. Baptist Bldg. Corp. v. Barnes, 1994 OK CIV APP 71, , 874 P.2d 68, 69. The appellate court has the plenary, independent, and nondeferential authority to re-examine a trial court's legal rulings. Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 1996 OK 125, 932 P.2d 1100 n.1. Matters involving legislative intent present questions of law which are examined independently and without deference to the trial court's ruling. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 113 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1991); Keizor v. Sand Springs Ry. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 98, , 861 P.2d 326, 328.
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
The issue before this Court is: What relief may a trial court grant to a judgment debtor in the case of a continuing garnishment of wages to satisfy a money judgment, that does not involve child support, when that judgment debtor claims and establishes an exemption of wages from garnishment based upon hardship?
The original wage garnishment statute provided for a one-at-a-time method of garnishment. R.L. 1910, § 4822-4841. Now, the provision for a single wage garnishment for other than child support is 12 O.S. Supp. 2000, §1173. This scheme persisted until 1989, when the Legislature amended the garnishment statutes to provide for additional types of garnishment. 1989 Okla. Sess. Laws, c. 236, § 1(B); now, 12 O.S. Supp. 2000, § 1171(B). Today, the garnishment statute provides for garnishment in child support matters, general garnishment, noncontinuing earnings garnishment, and continuing earnings garnishment. 12 O.S. Supp. 2000, § 1171(B). Here, the review is concerned with only earnings garnishments.
However, not all earnings may be reached by garnishment. The Homestead and Exemption statute
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|