Garnishment - Ala. R. App. P. 28(a)(10) Waiver
Elliott Law Group, P.A. v. Five Star Credit Union, [Ms. 1170922, Sept. 13, 2019] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2019). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Sellers and Stewart, JJ., concur; Parker, C.J., and Shaw and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result; Wise, J., recuses) issues a plurality opinion affirming a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court permitting garnishment of an Alabama attorney’s wages from his law firm in satisfaction of a judgment entered against that attorney in 2011.
First, the plurality rejects the appellants’ jurisdictional contentions because they “do not explain how [cited] cases support their argument; nor do the appellants identify the portions of the cited opinions upon which they rely.” Ms. *8. Replying upon Ala. R. App. P. 28(a)(10), the Court holds “[w]e are thus under no obligation to consider those cases. The appellants provide no reason we should accept this jurisdictional argument – and we therefore reject it.” Ms. **8-9.
Next, following the ore tenus standard of review, the plurality holds “the trial court did not exceed its discretion in finding that there was no legitimate business purpose for the line of credit, and that the line of credit was established to aid [the attorney] in avoiding creditors.” Ms. *12.
Finally, the Court rejects the appellants’ challenges to the garnishment proceeding in the trial court’s final order. Finding that appellants’ contentions were unsupported, each argument is rejected.