Burris v. Bauer
| Decision Date | 10 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 665,665 |
| Parties | WILLIAM BURRIS, ET AL., v. TED BAUER, ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Case No.: 03-C-05-009397
UNREPORTED
Nazarian, Beachley, Battaglia, Lynne, A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Battaglia, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104 In 2007, Ted and Sally Bauer, Appellees, obtained a judgment against Richard Keith Ikle. To collect on their judgment, they served a "Writ of Garnishment of Property" and a "Writ of Garnishment of Wages" on William Burris and Keller Williams Select Realtors of Annapolis (Burris or Appellants collectively herein), with whom Ikle was associated as a realtor in Baltimore County.
Burris, thereafter, filed an answer alleging that Ikle was not his employee nor that he had any property or wages belonging to Ikle on or after the date of the garnishments' service; discovery ensued. A bench trial followed, after which the Honorable Andrew Battista of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County entered judgment for the Bauers against Burris in the amount of $246,366.78. Burris essentially asks that we vacate the judgment, contending that the Circuit Court erred in concluding that he held any property or wages belonging to Ikle between the time of the writs' service and the date on which judgment was rendered in the matter.1
For the reasons that follow, we shall answer the questions in the negative and affirm.
"A writ of garnishment is a means of enforcing a judgment." Parkville Fed. Sav. Bank v. Md. Nat. Bank, 343 Md. 412, 418 (1996). It allows a judgment creditor to recover assets owned by the debtor but held by a third party. Id. In Fico, Inc. v. Ghingher, 287 Md. 150 (1980), the Court of Appeals further explained that:
A garnishment proceeding is . . . an action by the judgment debtor for the benefit of the judgment creditor which is brought against a third party, the garnishee, who holds the assets of the judgment debtor. An attaching judgment creditor is subrogated to the rights of the judgment debtor and can recover only by the same right and to the same extent that the judgment debtor might recover. The judgment itself is conclusive proof of the judgment debtor's obligation to the judgment creditor. The sole purpose of the garnishment proceeding therefore is to determine whether the garnishee ha[s] any funds, property or credits which belong to the judgment debtor.
Id. at 159 (internal citations omitted). To collect a judgment, a judgment creditor may enforce a judgment by levying an attachment against a judgment debtor's wages and/or property held by a third party.
With respect to wages, Section 15-602(a) of the Commercial Law Article provides that, "[w]hen an attachment is levied against the wages of a judgment debtor, it shall constitute a lien on all attachable wages that are payable at the time the attachment is served or which becomes payable until the judgment, interest, and costs, as specified in the attachment, are satisfied." Maryland Code (1978, 2013 Repl. Vol.). Wages are defined as "all monetary remuneration paid to any employee for his employment." Maryland Code (1957, 2013 Repl. Vol.), Section 15-601(c) of the Commercial Law Article.
Following the attachment, "the employer/garnishee shall withhold all attachable wages payable to the judgment debtor and remit the amount withheld to the judgment creditor or his legal representative[.]" Maryland Code (1978, 2013 Repl. Vol.), Section 15-603(a) of the Commercial Law Article. Maryland Rule 2-6462 governs the proceduresfor garnishment of wages in the circuit courts. When someone is served with a writ of garnishment, they are required to file an answer stating whether the debtor is their employee and, if so, the rate of that employee's compensation. Rule 2-646(e). In the answer, the garnishee may assert any defense to the garnishment, as well as any defense the debtor may assert; the judgment debtor may also assert a defense or objection to the garnishment action. Id. If an answer is filed asserting any defense other than non-employment of the debtor, the matter is set for a hearing. Rule 2-646(g). The garnishee must begin withholding wages upon service of the writ and remit the withheld amounts to the judgment creditor, or the creditor's counsel; if, however, the garnishee has asserted a defense, he or she "shall remit the withheld wages to the court." Rule 2-646(i).
A judgment creditor also may levy an attachment against "any property or credit, matured or unmatured, which belong to the debtor." Maryland Code (1957, 2013 Repl. Vol.), Section 3-305 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Rule 2-645,3 the Rulewhich governs the garnishment of property, defines property as "any property of the judgment debtor, other than the wages subject to Rule 2-646 and a partnership interest subject to a charging order, in the hands of a third person for the purpose of satisfying a money judgment." Rule 2-645(a). Property also "includes any debt owed to the judgment debtor, whether immediately payable or unmatured." Id.
As is with the procedure involving the garnishment of wages, a garnishee also is required to file an answer when served with a writ of garnishment of property. In addition to admitting or denying having possession of the debtor's property, the garnishee may also assert any defenses available to the garnishee or the debtor. Rule 2-645(e). In the context of a property garnishment, "the garnishee may pay any garnished indebtedness into the court and may deliver to the sheriff any garnished property[.]" Id. Where a timely reply is filed to the answer of the garnishee, as the Bauers did here, "the matter shall proceed as if it were an original action . . . and shall be governed by the rules applicable to civil actions." Rule 2-645(g).
Remittance of the wages and/or property to the creditor absolves the garnishee of liability. See, e.g., Hunt Valley Masonry, Inc. v. Fred Maier Block, Inc., 108 Md. App. 100, 107 (1996). If, however, a garnishee ignores their obligations set forth in a writ, the court may impose personal liability on them. See id. Whether the writ involves wages or property, "[o]nce obtained and properly served on the garnishee, a writ of garnishment requires the garnishee to take positive action by holding the property until the entry of judgment in the garnishment action." Parkville Fed. Sav. Bank, 343 Md. at 419 (citing Fico, 287 Md. at 162).
If, however, the garnishee "surrenders the property [to the debtor] after service of the writ but prior to judgment," in clear violation of the writ's mandates, they are "liable to the judgment creditor for the value of the debtor's property released." Id. (); see also Hunt Valley Masonry, Inc., 108 Md. App. at 107 ().
On March 5, 2007, Ted and Sally Bauer, Appellees, the judgment creditors herein, obtained a judgment against Richard Keith Hansen Ikle, the judgment debtor herein, in the amount of $464,458.00; as of April of 2019, the amount had increased, to exceed $900,000.00. Because their judgment had not been satisfied, the Bauers requested that the Circuit Court for Baltimore County issue writs of garnishment on "Bill Burris/Keller Williams Select Realtors of Annapolis," the "real estate business with which the Judgment Debtor is associated as a salesperson." In September of 2016, the Circuit Court issued writs of garnishment of property and wages against William Burris and Keller Williams Select Realtors of Annapolis.
Burris filed an Answer to the writs, stating that Ikle was not employed by him and that he did not possess any assets owed to Ikle "on or subsequent to the date of service of the writ of garnishment" and even if he did, he was not required to hold such assets. Burris alleged that, "as is common in the real estate industry, the Judgment Debtor is part of a real estate team under the name, Lynnco C.R.C., LLC," and as such, Lynnco C.R.C., LLC, asa party to the independent contractor agreement with Burris, was due any commissions earned by the team, not Ikle individually. The Bauers filed a reply to the answer, as required by Rule 2-645(g), refuting the averments contained in the Answer and alleging that Burris possessed property of the judgment debtor in the form of real estate sales commissions.
Both parties then filed motions for summary judgment, which the Circuit Court denied, and a four-day bench trial ensued in February and March of 2019. At the bench trial, over which Judge Andrew Battista presided, the following individuals testified: William Burris, Julia Williams, several individuals who bought property from members of Lynnco C.R.C., LLC under the auspices of Keller Williams Select Realtors of Annapolis, and Leslie Ikle, the spouse of Ikle. The parties offered numerous documents, such as an Independent Contractor Agreement, an Amended Independent Contractor Agreement, a string of emails between Ikle and Burris, various property sales contracts, pay checks, and deposition transcripts of Burris, among others.
In a written Opinion and Order dated April 12, 2019, Judge Battista made various findings, none of which is being challenged as erroneous before us. The findings relevant to the period from the time Burris and Ikle entered a professional relationship in February of 2012, to the issuance of the writs of garnishment in September of 2016, and through the entry of judgment in April of 2019 are summarized and encapsulated below:
To continue reading
Request your trial