Green v. Harbin, Civ. A. No. 82-C-5598-NE.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 82-C-5598-NE.
• Citation: 615 F. Supp. 719
• Parties: Patricia GREEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Billy D. HARBIN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

615 F. Supp. 719

Patricia GREEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Billy D. HARBIN, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 82-C-5598-NE.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division.

May 20, 1985.

Thomas G. Keith, Legal Services of North Central Alabama, Huntsville, Ala., and Charles G. Spratling, Jr., Birmingham Area Legal Services, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs.

Charles Graddick, Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., James H. Harris, Charles Driggars, Birmingham, Ala., Robert H. Harris, Decatur, Ala., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

CLEMON, District Judge.

On October 15, 1982, plaintiff filed this class action against Alabama's circuit and district court clerks,¹ alleging that the State's garnishment laws are unconstitutional in certain aspects. Specifically, the plaintiff class asserts that the Alabama statutory garnishment scheme fails to provide judgment debtors with adequate notice of their exemption rights and the procedure for claiming exemptions, and that it fails to provide a reasonably prompt procedure for the dissolution of garnishments where exemption rights are claimed by judgment debtors — both in violation of its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On July 13, 1982, plaintiff moved for certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") as both a plaintiff and defendant class action. Counsel for defendant clerks agreed to the certification sought by plaintiff; and on August 31, 1982, the action was certified as a class action.

In their joint Statement of Facts, the parties have agreed to the relevant facts. Plaintiff Patricia Green is an adult resident of Huntsville, (Madison County), Alabama. She is the sole source of support for her two minor children. On August 8, 1980 Avco Financial Services ("Avco") obtained a $381.06 judgment against her in the Madison County Circuit Court, based on her default in the repayment of a consumer loan. The judgment so obtained was without waiver of exemption rights. On March 10, 1982, Avco applied for a writ of garnishment from defendant Billy D. Harbin in his capacity as clerk of the District Court of Madison County; and on the same date, Harbin issued the writ to Central Bank of Alabama, where plaintiff maintained a checking account. Plaintiff's checking account, consisting of approximately $500, was immediately frozen by Central Bank upon its receipt of the writ of garnishment on March 12, 1982.

Plaintiff did not know, and was not given any written notice by anyone, of her exemption rights under Alabama law.² Prior to the freezing of her checking account by Central Bank, plaintiff had written several checks on the account. These checks were returned by the bank for insufficient funds; and as a result of the dishonor of one of these checks, plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated for issuing a worthless check.

On March 19, 1982, after receiving legal advice and assistance from her present counsel, Legal Services of North-Central Alabama, Inc., plaintiff executed and filed a claim of exemption in the District Court; and on the same date, she moved for a stay of the writ of garnishment. The District Court did not hear the motion until nearly a month later — on April 19, 1982. At that time, the writ of garnishment was dissolved and Central Bank was ordered not to release any funds being withheld from plaintiff's checking account due to the garnishment.

As of the time of the filing of this action, no circuit or district court clerks in Alabama provided written notice of exemption rights to judgment debtors in pre-garnishment or post-garnishment proceedings. Not more than one of the district and circuit clerks in the State automatically dissolve a writ of garnishment where a claim of exemption is filed and there is no timely contest of exemptions, in the absence of a court order.

Based on these undisputed facts, the plaintiff class successfully moved for partial summary judgment that the defendants' failure to provide adequate notice of exemption rights of judgment debtors violates the due process clause of the Constitution. The motion was granted on October 5, 1983.

In the last few days of December, 1983, the Court granted plaintiffs' unopposed motion to add a defendant class consisting of all district and circuit judges in Alabama. The state judges were added as FRCP 19 defendants.³

Also in December, 1983, Polly Conradi, the Circuit Clerk of Jefferson County, Alabama moved to intervene in the case. She further sought to vacate the certification of the defendant class and to set aside the order of partial summary judgment. The motion to intervene was granted under FRCP 24(b);⁴ the motions to reconsider class certification and partial summary judgment were overruled.

At the time the case was called for trial, counsel for all of the main parties (other than intervenor Conradi) announced that they had reached a tentative settlement. They presented the Court with a proposed consent decree shortly thereafter. The Court reviewed the terms of the proposed Consent Decree and tentatively approved it, based on the Court's conditional finding that the decree was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court scheduled a hearing on objections to the decree for December 28, 1984.

The only record objections to the decree were filed and made by four state court judges. Their basic objection is that state court judges should not have been included as defendants in this case; and that the certification of the state court judges as a class was improper. They also made certain substantive objections to the content of the proposed decree.

Insofar as they contend that state judges are, as a class, beyond the pale of federal jurisdiction in cases challenging the constitutionality of state statutes or policies, their contention must be rejected. See Lynch v. Baxley, 386 F.Supp. 378, 385 (M.D.Ala.1974). However, upon consideration, the presence of state court judges in this action is not necessary to accord complete relief between the parties; and principles of comity suggest that they be dismissed from this action. Accordingly, the motion of the four judges to reconsider the certification of the judges as a class will be granted by separate order; and the action will be de-certified as to them. The state court judges will be dismissed from this action, over the objection of the plaintiff class.

The parties have agreed to a modification of the proposed decree in light of three of the four substantive objections. Pursuant to the agreement, the decree will not apply to those garnishments issued to enforce child or spousal judgments. Further, the decree will specify that only the property which is in fact exempt should be discharged where the judgment creditor fails to contest a claim of exemption. Moreover, in the interest of providing the requisite flexibility and discretion in the docketing of court cases, the decree will provide that contests must be initially scheduled within 7 calendar days after a contest is filed.

Counsel for the remaining defendant class has argued in chambers that Paragraph Five of the Proposed Consent Decree should be amended to provide that the enactment of any statute or the adoption of any court rule concerning the procedure to be utilized in garnishments will, ipso facto, dissolve the injunction to be entered in this case. Finding that the proposed consent decree, with the decertification of the class and dismissal of state court judges and the agreed to modifications, is completely fair, adequate, and reasonable, the Court is without authority to modify the consent decree in the manner suggested by defendant's counsel. Paragraph Five is the result of intense and hard-fought negotiations between counsel for both classes; it embodies the agreement of the parties. In the absence of unfairness, inadequacy, or unreasonableness, the Court is powerless to grant the defendant class now what it was unable to achieve in negotiations. Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157, 1172 (5th Cir.1978); Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331-32 (5th Cir.1977). Significantly the defendant class has voiced no objection whatever to the Court concerning the provision now complained of.

The defenses of intervenor Conradi are now under submission to the Court on a Trial Stipulation.

Defendant Conradi's position is simple and straightforward: "due process does not require notification of `basic' exemption rights (or any other exemption rights) in the context of post-judgment garnishments."⁵

At the time a writ of garnishment is issued by the clerk, of the Jefferson County Circuit or District Court, the judgment debtor (if a resident of Alabama) is served with a copy of notice of the Process of Garnishment which is served on the garnishee. This notice does not once mention exemption rights.

After the circuit and district clerks in Jefferson County became aware that this Court had issued a partial summary judgment holding that the Alabama garnishment scheme is unconstitutional in part, they implemented a policy of providing judgment debtors with an additional document entitled, "Notice to Defendant-Exemption Rights." This "notice" basically informs the judgment debtor that he/she may have exemption rights which may be claimed, and it advises the debtor to contact a lawyer for further explanation; and it advises the debtor of the procedure for claiming an exemption.

If a judgment debtor files a claim of exemption in the District Court of Jefferson County, the judgment creditor must file a contest of the claim within ten days after receiving notice of the claim. If the creditor notifies the Clerk that it does not plan to contest the claim, the District Court will dissolve the garnishment writ and release any property seized pursuant to it. However, if the judgment creditor does nothing within the ten-day period, the judgment debtor must file a motion to dissolve the...