Lawrence v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

• Decision Date: 02 February 1970
• Docket Number: No. 5--5166,5--5166
• Citation: 449 S.W.2d 695,247 Ark. 1125
• Parties: M. T. LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY and Benton State Bank, Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 695

449 S.W.2d 695

247 Ark. 1125

M. T. LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY and Benton State Bank, Appellees.

No. 5--5166.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Feb. 2, 1970.

Carl Langston, Little Rock, for appellant.

Hall, Tucker & Lovell, Benton, for appellees.

FOGLEMAN, Justice.

M. T. Lawrence appeals from judgments entered in an action on a promissory note brought by him against one W. T. Williams, who operated a Ford automobile dealership as Williams Ford Company. ¹ He asserts that there was error in permitting Benton State Bank to intervene and in denying his motion to strike and dismiss the intervention. He also contends that the court erred in discharging the garnishee, Ford Motor Credit Company. No other issue is raised on this appeal. The major premise of both points for reversal is that a 'consent judgment' entered relative to a garnishment issued against the credit company in the original action constituted a final judgment against the garnishee and was conclusive as to the rights of Lawrence in funds later paid into court by the garnishee.

Since we do not agree with appellant a review of the history of the litigation is necessary. By a written instrument dated August 11, 1965, Benton State Bank was assigned all sums belonging, or which might become payable, to Williams Ford Company, from a reserve account established by Ford Motor Credit Company. Lawrence filed suit against Williams on August 30, 1965, and caused the issuance of a garnishment against Ford Motor Credit Company. The date of service of this writ does not appear, but an answer denying the existence of any indebtedness to Williams was verified on September 15, 1965, and filed two days later. Upon traverse of this answer by appellant, propounding additional interrogatories, the garnishee on October 14 filed a supplemental answer. In this answer the credit company admitted that it held $20,353.15 to the credit of Williams Ford Company representing dealer reserves and excise tax refunds, an estimated $4,800 in factory credits from Ford Motor Company and $1,997.12 in dealer funds, all as security for contingent liabilities of Williams Ford Company on paper hypothecated to garnishee with recourse, and a continuing guaranty of the debts of Williams Ford Company by Williams.

In the meantime, judgment against Williams in favor of Lawrence for $11,685.22 had been filed on October 5. On November 8, 1965, a court order labeled 'judgment' was made and filed. By its terms, the garnishee was ordered to hold the funds described in its supplemental answer, apply them pursuant to agreements with Williams Ford Company, and, when all its claims thereagainst were liguidated to pay any excess first to Lawrence, and then to Williams, when and if the claim of Lawrence was satisfied. ² On April 16, 1966, appellant propounded additional interrogatories to the garnishee asking an accounting for the funds it had held. The record does not reflect any answer by the credit company.

No other action was taken until March 19, 1969, when Benton State Bank filed its complaint in intervention, asserting ownership of any balance of the funds in question by reason of the assignment previously mentioned. Its motion for intervention was granted the following day. On May 21, 1969, Lawrence filed a motion to dismiss and strike the intervention. He asserted that the intervention was untimely because filed 3 1/2 years after judgment had been entered against the garnishee.

The garnishee then paid $4,078.70 into the registry of the court and filed its motion for discharge on June 4, 1969, which was granted by the court on the same day. On June 19 the court denied appellant's motion to dismiss and strike the intervention. On August 13, 1969, both parties moved for summary judgment. The motion of Benton State Bank was granted.

We do not agree with appellant in his assumption that the 'judgment' entered on November 8, 1965, constituted a final judgment against the garnishee. ³ Arkansas Statutes Annotated § 31--509 (Repl.1962) provides for judgment against a garnishee after answer and determination of issues made by the pleadings 'for the amount due from the garnishee to the defendant in the original judgment, or so much thereof as will be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's judgment, with costs.' It is clear that the judgment must specify the amount to be paid. The 'judgment' entered was not a 'final judgment.' In Thomas v. McElroy, 243 Ark. 465, 420 S.W.2d 530, we said that a judgment must be tested by substance and not form. We held that a judgment for money must be a final determination of the rights of the parties in an action, must specify the amount the defendant is required to pay, and must be capable of enforcement by execution or other appropriate means. Here, there was never a time, prior to the intervention,...