Popple v. United States, Civ-76-144.
Decision Date | 09 August 1976 |
Docket Number | No. Civ-76-144.,Civ-76-144. |
Citation | 416 F. Supp. 1227 |
Parties | Richard W. POPPLE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, United States Department of Defense (Department of the Army) Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Brown & LeBlanc, Depew, N.Y. (Norman A. LeBlanc, Jr., and James E. Brown, Depew, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.
Richard J. Arcara, U.S. Atty., Buffalo, N.Y. (James A. Fronk, Buffalo, N.Y., of counsel), for the Government.
The plaintiff in this action, who was married in Alabama in 1946 and divorced in Arkansas in 1971, challenges the garnishment of his Army retirement pay ordered by a Georgia court in February of this year. The basis for the Georgia summons of garnishment served on the United States Attorney in Georgia is 42 U.S.C. § 659, which reads:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective January 1, 1975, monies (the entitlement to which is based upon a remuneration for employment) due from, or payable by, the United States (including any agency or instrumentality thereof and any wholly owned Federal corporation) to any individual, including members of the armed forces, shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States were a private person, to legal process brought for the enforcement, against such individual of his legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments.
The plaintiff apparently is deficient in support and alimony payments.
The Government did not contest the garnishment and it contends that there is no jurisdiction for this action in this court. It claims that it is merely in the position of a stakeholder and that this action should have been brought against the plaintiff's exspouse in the Georgia state courts. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 659, supra, but in his memorandum of law he argues that § 659 does not provide a jurisdictional basis for this action. Instead, he argues:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Williams
...Rep. McFall). 14 To the same effect, see also Carroll v. Carroll, No. P-Misc. 75-63 (N.D.Fla., filed 7/29/76); cf. Popple v. United States, 416 F.Supp. 1227 (W.D.N.Y.1976). A copy of the opinion in Carroll has been filed in the court file in this case. 15 See also 120 Cong.Rec. H12,590 (rem......
-
Loftin v. Rush
...F.Supp. 557, 559 (D.Md.1976); Wilhelm v. United States Dept. of Air Force, 418 F.Supp. 162, 164 (S.D.Tex.1976); Popple v. United States, 416 F.Supp. 1227, 1228 (W.D.N.Y.1976); Golightly v. Golightly, 410 F.Supp. 861, 862-63 (D.Neb.1976); Morrison v. Morrison, 408 F.Supp. 315, 317-18 (N.D.Te......
-
Garrett v. Hoffman
...Wheat.) 738, 822, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 379, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821). See also Popple v. United States, 416 F.Supp. 1227 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). Because the ultimate disposition of this motion turns on the nature of the relief requested, I have set out in full ......
-
Morton v. U.S.
...the writ of garnishment is "regular on its face." However, the cases relied upon by the Government, beginning with Popple v. United States, 416 F.Supp. 1227 (W.D.N.Y.1976), and including Craft v. Craft, 77-1205 (W.D.Okl. Feb. 16, 1979), involved the question of whether a federal district co......