Background
Joan Strassman obtained a judgment against Karen Howe for $109,250 plus interest and costs in September 2022. To collect, Strassman sought post-judgment wage garnishment against Howe’s employer, Brightstar Global Solutions Corporation (formerly IGT Global Solutions). A writ of attachment was served on Brightstar on February 17, 2023.
Under Rhode Island law, a garnishee must file a sworn account within 20 days of service disclosing what wages or assets it holds belonging to the judgment debtor. Brightstar initially failed to file timely affidavits, and when it did file, the documents were notarized by a notary whose commission had expired. Strassman then moved to charge the garnishee—seek liability for the full judgment amount—under R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-17-15, arguing the garnishee’s failure to comply with statutory requirements entitled her to recover the entire judgment from Brightstar. Brightstar subsequently filed valid affidavits showing it had properly garnished Howe’s wages.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Strassman’s motion to charge. The controlling statute, § 10-17-15, imposes liability on a garnishee for the full judgment amount only if the garnishee “refuse[s] or neglect[s] to render, on oath, the account required” by the garnishment statutes. The court found that Strassman had conceded at the hearing that Brightstar had neither refused nor neglected to render an account—Brightstar ultimately provided valid sworn disclosures of the garnished wages.
Because Strassman failed to establish the statutory prerequisite of refusal or neglect, the court could not impose liability. The court further noted that Strassman had suffered no injury, having already received the garnished wages from Howe’s paychecks. The court declined to address Brightstar’s cross-appeal challenging the constitutionality of § 10-17-15, citing the principle that constitutional questions should not be decided when not necessary to resolve the case.
Key Takeaways
- Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-17-15, a garnishee incurs liability for the full judgment amount only upon refusal or neglect to render required sworn accounts—not merely for procedural defects or technical violations.
- Late filing or filing with an invalid notary signature does not automatically constitute refusal or neglect if the garnishee later provides valid documentation.
- Courts will not impose garnishee liability when the creditor has already received the garnished funds and suffered no injury.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important boundary in Rhode Island garnishment law. For judgment creditors and their attorneys, it means that while procedural compliance by garnishees matters, courts will not impose the harsh remedy of full judgment liability without showing actual refusal or neglect and demonstrable injury. Garnishees, conversely, gain some assurance that technical defects in initial filings can be remedied without triggering maximum liability, so long as they ultimately comply and render valid accounts.
The decision reinforces that Rhode Island’s garnishment statutes are remedial in nature—designed to facilitate collection, not to penalize garnishees beyond the injury actually caused. Practitioners using wage garnishment should note that establishing statutory liability requires more than pointing to procedural delays; they must demonstrate the garnishee’s unwillingness or failure to provide the required account.