Overman v. Overman
| Citation | 570 S.W.2d 857 |
| Parties | Frances Henson OVERMAN, Petitioner, v. Ralph T. OVERMAN, Sr., and Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America and its companion, College Retirement Equities Fund, Respondents. 570 S.W.2d 857 |
| Decision Date | 14 August 1978 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Frances Henson Overman, pro se.
Foster D. Arnett, F. Michael Fitzpatrick, Arnett, Draper & Hagood, Knoxville, for respondents.
The dispositive question in this case is whether the petitioner, Frances Overman, may garnish certain rights possessed by Ralph T. Overman in two annuity agreements. The chancellor and the Court of Appeals both held that she could not. We affirm.
Mrs. Overman has reduced to judgment a claim against her former husband, Ralph T. Overman, for unpaid alimony. In an attempt to satisfy that judgment, the petitioner caused writs of garnishment to issue against the respondents, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America and College Retirement Equities Fund, each of which had issued an annuity policy to Mr. Overman. In so far as is material to this case, the policies provide for a maturity date, September 1, 1984, which can be advanced at Mr. Overman's option, and a death benefit payable to designated beneficiaries should Mr. Overman die before the maturity date. At present, the primary beneficiary for the purposes of this latter provision on each policy is Mr. Overman's second wife. On motion of the respondents, the chancellor quashed the writ of garnishment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the provisions of T.C.A. § 56-1110, the policies were exempt from the petitioner's claims.
We agree with the results reached by the Court of Appeals, not only because we concur with their finding that T.C.A. § 56-1110 exempts the annuity contracts at issue from garnishment, but also because we find that the respondents possess no property of Mr. Overman subject to garnishment.
Addressing the latter issue first, we note that the statute that sets forth the nature of the property and claims that are subject to garnishment, T.C.A. § 26-505, provides as follows:
All property, debts, and effects of the defendant in the possession of the garnishee, or under his control, shall be liable to satisfy the plaintiff's judgment, from the service of the notice, or from the time they came to his hands, if acquired subsequent to the service of notice, and before judgment. The words "property, debts, and effects," include real estate and choses in action, whether due or not, and judgments before a justice of the peace; also money or stocks in an incorporated company.
When the statute is applied to the circumstances presented in the instant case, it is apparent that the writs of garnishment must be directed either at rights possessed by Mr. Overman or at obligations owed him by the respondents, arising from the annuity contracts and ostensibly in the possession of the respondents.
Mr. Overman does possess a number of rights under the contracts, as, for instance, the rights to change their maturity dates or to change the designated beneficiaries under the death benefit provisions. However, these rights, while they may be property, are not "property . . . in the Possession of the garnishee(s)." T.C.A. § 26-505 (emphasis supplied). If anything, they are property in the possession of Mr. Overman. As a result, they may not be reached by writs of garnishment directed at the respondents. See United States v. Home Life Insurance Co., 355 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1966); United States v. Mitchell, 349 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Sullivan, 333 F.2d 100 (3rd Cir. 1964) (concerning similar procedures for the seizure of property in satisfaction of a delinquent tax obligation. Cf. Annot., 37 A.L.R.2d 268, § 5 ().
In addition, the respondents have an existing obligation to Mr. Overman under the contracts specifically, the obligation to make payments to him according to the terms of the annuities should he live until their dates of maturity. However, this obligation, whether it is characterized as a debt or as a chose in action, is not subject to garnishment because it is contingent on a future event Mr. Overman's survival until the dates of maturity. If he should die before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLT Computer Services v. Capital Computer Systems, Civ. No. 82-3558.
...the writs did not attach to the payments in issue because the obligation to pay was contingent on a future event, see Overman v. Overman, 570 S.W.2d 857 (Tenn.1978); and even if they did attach, they provided Testa and Richard with only a lien—not possession—on the contract right to be paid......
-
In re Clemmer
...56-7-203, the same requirement would most certainly apply to spouses, which is contrary to Tennessee case law. See Overman v. Overman, 570 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Tenn.1978) (failing to discuss whether the wife was financially dependent on her husband before finding that the annuity contracts, to ......
-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Regions Bank
...Inc. v. Arete Agencies, Inc., No. M200402073COAR3CV, 2005 WL 3333270, at *3 (Tenn. Ct.App. Dec. 7, 2005) (citing Overman v. Overman, 570 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Tenn.1978)). For indebtedness to have been actual and vested at the time of garnishment, Cincinnati Insurance must have been Vision Homes......
-
Connick v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n of America
...(Boone County, Iowa June 26, 1981); 2 Alexandre v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 61 App.Div.2d 537, 403 N.Y.S.2d 21 (1978); Overman v. Overman, 570 S.W.2d 857 (Tenn.1978); Abbett v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, No. 7883/1968, Supreme Court, New York County (July 8, 1......