Strickland v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 08 September 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:12–CV–02735–MHS.
• Citation: 153 F.Supp.3d 1397
• Parties: Tony W. STRICKLAND, Plaintiff, v. Richard T. ALEXANDER, Clerk of Court of the State Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

153 F.Supp.3d 1397

Tony W. STRICKLAND, Plaintiff,

v.Richard T. ALEXANDER, Clerk of Court of the State Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:12–CV–02735–MHS.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Signed Sept. 8, 2015.

David A. Webster, Attorney at Law, Atlanta, GA, Donald Maurice Coleman, Jon Erik Heath, Atlanta Legal Aid Society, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

Christopher R. Yarbrough, Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C., Marietta, GA, for Defendant.

ORDER

MARVIN H. SHOOB

, Senior District Judge.

This action challenging the constitutionality of Georgia's post-judgment garnishment statute, O.C.G.A. § 18–4–60 et seq.

, is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 90], grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 93], and enters appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief.

Statement of Facts¹

Plaintiff Tony W. Strickland had a long career installing gas products until he was diagnosed with cancer

in 2004. Mr. Strickland survived his bout with cancer, but because of the lasting effects of his chemotherapy treatments, he was unable to work as many hours as he had before. In 2005, as a result of the financial hardship created by his inability to work, Mr. Strickland defaulted on a Discover credit card he had used to cover household expenses during his chemotherapy treatments.

Subsequently, Mr. Strickland developed other health issues. He suffered a series of strokes

and developed atrial fibrillation, a potentially dangerous heart arrhythmia. He was prescribed Propafenone (commonly known as Rythmol ) to keep his heart in rhythm and was told that his heart could fall out of rhythm, with dire consequences, if it was not taken as prescribed.

On June 25, 2009, Mr. Strickland seriously injured his back while at work and subsequently began receiving weekly workers' compensation benefits. In February 2011, Mr. Strickland received a lump-sum workers' compensation settlement for his injuries in the amount of $30,000. He and his wife, Lynn, opened an account at JPMorgan Chase (“Chase”) specifically for the purpose of setting aside these workers' compensation funds for household and medical expenses. Mrs. Strickland was listed as a joint account holder in case Mr. Strickland faced further health issues and was unable to access needed funds himself. The Stricklands proceeded to use these funds for basic living and healthcare expenses.

In August 2011, Mr. Strickland's health issues also qualified him to receive Social Security disability benefits. He arranged to have the Social Security Administration deposit those funds in a checking account at a separate institution.

Meanwhile, on December 4, 2009, Discover Bank (“Discover”), represented by the law firm of Greene & Cooper, LLP (“G & C”), sued Mr. Strickland for the unpaid credit card debt in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Stipulation [Doc. 88–1], Ex. A. On April 4, 2012, Discover obtained a default judgment (the “Judgment”) against Mr. Strickland in the principal amount of $13,849.93, plus interest of $2,138.64, attorney's fees of $1,613.61, and court costs of $147.50. Id., Ex. B.

On July 6, 2012, G & C, on behalf of Discover, filed a garnishment action against Mr. Strickland in the State Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, naming Chase as the garnishee and seeking $18,096.65 as the balance due on the Judgment. Id., Ex. C. Defendant Richard T. Alexander, Clerk of Court for the State Court of Gwinnett County, generated a garnishment summons, which advised the garnishee to “hold all property, money and wages, except what is exempt ... belonging to the defendant.” Id., Ex. D. After being served with the garnishment summons on July 11, 2012, Chase immediately froze Mr. Strickland's savings account, which contained $15,652.67 in workers' compensation benefits.

On July 16, 2012, Mr. Strickland received a certified letter from G & C notifying him of the garnishment action. Id., Ex. G. The notice, however, did not inform Mr. Strickland that some forms of property were exempt from garnishment, nor did it inform him how to claim such an exemption. On the same day, Mr. Strickland also received a letter from Chase. Id., Ex. J. The letter advised him that the bank had been served with a writ of garnishment and that his bank account had been frozen. The letter also explained that some forms of income, including workers' compensation benefits, may be protected from garnishment depending on where Mr. Strickland lived, but it did not advise him how to claim an exemption. Instead, the letter merely advised Mr. Strickland to contact the judgment creditor's attorney if he believed that his money was exempt from the garnishment process. No other notices about the garnishment action were sent to Mr. Strickland.

After receiving the letters from G & C and Chase, Mr. Strickland went to his local bank branch to inquire about the garnishment. There, Mr. Strickland learned that the entirety of what remained of his workers' compensation funds had been frozen, and he was again advised that he should contact the judgment creditor if he believed the garnishment to be in error.

On July 17, 2012, Mr. Strickland contacted G & C, but he was unable to convince them to release the garnishment. When Mr. Strickland hung up the phone after the conversation with G & C, he was so upset that he could not speak, and he began to feel nauseated. Not knowing what the family could do or how the family would be able to afford the remaining household expenses for the month, he began to cry and shake.

By the end of July 2012, Mr. Strickland was out of money and could not afford to refill his Rythmol

prescription. Despite his understanding of the dangers of not taking the medication, which included the possibility of a stroke or the need for shock therapy, he had to skip doses. The danger of skipping the medication took an emotional toll on Mr. Strickland. He lost his appetite, became a quiet person, and felt like he had let his family down.

On August 20, 2012, Chase filed an answer in the garnishment action and paid the entire balance of Mr. Strickland's accounts, totaling $15,652.67, into court. Stipulation [Doc. 88–1], Ex. K. These funds consisted entirely of workers' compensation benefits. Defendant Alexander was responsible for the administration of these funds once they were paid into court.

On August 28, 2012, Mr. Strickland, through his attorney Marsha Kleveckis of Gwinnett Legal Aid, sent an email to G & C explaining that the funds in Mr. Strickland's Chase bank account were exempt workers' compensation settlement funds. Id., Ex. L. Ms. Kleveckis, however, was unable to resolve the matter with G & C.

On September 4, 2012, Ms. Kleveckis, on behalf of Mr. Strickland, filed a Claim for Funds Paid Into Court in the garnishment action. Id., Ex. M. The claim asserted that Mr. Strickland had a superior claim to the funds because they were workers' compensation benefits protected from garnishment under O.C.G.A. § 34–9–84

. On October 10, 2012, Discover filed a Notice of Opposition to Mr. Strickland's claim. Id., Ex. O. The court scheduled a hearing on the claim for October 24, 2012. Id., Ex. P.

Meanwhile, sometime in October 2012, Mr. Strickland developed a blood clot

in his hand that required surgery. Because his workers' compensation funds were still in court, he did not know how to pay for the surgery, so Mr. Strickland had to delay scheduling it. During this time, Mr. Strickland lost sleep, lost his appetite, and again began to cry because of the emotional toll of not being able to afford needed medical care. After his hand became so swollen that he could not use it and turned black all the way up to his elbow, the Stricklands decided to schedule the surgery and worry about payment afterwards.

On October 23, 2012, the day before the scheduled hearing on Mr. Strickland's claim, Discover dismissed the garnishment action. Id., Ex. Q. The next day, the court entered an order releasing the deposited funds to Mr. Strickland, and on October 29, 2012, the State Court of Gwinnett County issued a check to Mr. Strickland in the amount of his seized workers' compensation funds, $15,652.67. Id., Ex. R. Mr. Strickland's attorney received the check on November 2, 2012, nearly four months after his account had initially been frozen by Chase as a result of the garnishment action.

Procedural History

On August 8, 2012, while the garnishment action was still pending in the State Court of Gwinnett County, Mr. Strickland, through attorneys with the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, filed this action against defendant Alexander, Discover, G & C, and Chase challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of Georgia's post-judgment garnishment statute and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Mr. Strickland asserted two claims against defendants: one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for acting under color of state law and unconstitutionally depriving him of his property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and one under the Georgia Bill of Rights for depriving him of his property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Georgia Constitution.

Specifically, Mr. Strickland alleged that at least three aspects of the garnishment statute violated due process requirements under both the United States and Georgia Constitutions. Compl. [Doc. 4] ¶¶ 45, 52. First, Mr. Strickland alleged that by not requiring notice of available statutory exemptions from garnishment, O.C.G.A. § 18–4–64

failed to conform with due process notice requirements. Second, Mr. Strickland alleged that by not providing a debtor with a prompt procedure to claim an exemption and obtain return of the protected property, the structure of the garnishment process failed to conform with due process timeliness...