Utah Court of Appeals
Can courts impose penalties on garnishees for incorrect interrogatory answers? Bud Bailey Construction, Inc. v. Cache Valley Bank Explained
Summary
Cache Valley Bank failed to properly answer a garnishment interrogatory regarding offset rights when served by Bud Bailey Construction. The trial court assessed the Bank $17,901.94 plus attorney fees for this failure. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court improperly treated the assessment as a penalty rather than liability for actual damages.
Analysis
In Bud Bailey Construction, Inc. v. Cache Valley Bank, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the scope of liability under Rule 64D(j)(2) when garnishees fail to properly respond to garnishment interrogatories.
Cache Valley Bank held $17,901.94 in Construction Associates’ checking account when served with a writ of garnishment by Bud Bailey Construction. The Bank’s response to the garnishment interrogatories failed to disclose its right to offset the funds against outstanding loans. When the Bank later informed the parties of this error, the trial court assessed the full amount plus attorney fees against the Bank.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court misapplied Rule 64D(j)(2) by treating it as a punitive sanction rather than a liability provision. The court emphasized that garnishee liability under the rule must reflect actual damages stemming from the garnishee’s error, not serve as a penalty for procedural missteps.
Importantly, the court noted that Rule 64D is “designed to facilitate collection and should not be used to place undue burdens or risks on garnishees.” The assessment must be supported by factual findings demonstrating that the garnishee’s failure caused actual harm to the judgment creditor.
The decision also addressed attorney fees under Rule 64D(j)(2), holding that such fees must be reasonable and incurred as a result of the garnishee’s failure. The court remanded for the trial court to reconsider both the damages assessment and attorney fee award based on proper legal standards.
This ruling clarifies that while garnishees must comply with interrogatory requirements, courts cannot impose automatic monetary penalties without evidence of actual prejudice to the judgment creditor.
Case Details
Case Name
Bud Bailey Construction, Inc. v. Cache Valley Bank
Citation
2011 UT App 149
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100463-CA
Date Decided
May 12, 2011
Outcome
Reversed and Remanded
Holding
Rule 64D(j)(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides for liability assessment rather than punitive sanctions against garnishees, and any assessment must be supported by factual findings demonstrating actual damages.
Standard of Review
Correctness for interpretation of law and rules of civil procedure; factual findings reviewed for clear error with no deference accorded when findings are inadequate
Practice Tip
When seeking damages against a garnishee under Rule 64D(j)(2), ensure you present factual evidence of actual harm caused by the garnishee’s failure to comply, not just the procedural violation itself.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.