Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blach v. AFLAC, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division

March 14, 2018

HAROLD BLACH, Plaintiff,
v.
AFLAC, INC., Garnishee, ROBERT FREY, REGENCY REALTY, LLC, and ROBERT FREY, TRUSTEE, Third Party Claimants, SAL DIAZ-VERSON, Defendant.

          ORDER

          CLAY D. LAND, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         Third Party Claimant Robert Frey held, pursuant to an assignment from Porter Bridge Loan Company, a judgment against his former client, Defendant Sal-Diaz Verson (“Porter Bridge Judgment”). That judgment secured certain unpaid legal fees that Diaz-Verson owed to Frey. Frey asserts that he assigned the Porter Bridge Judgment to Regency Realty, LLC and that Regency Realty assigned the Porter Bridge Judgment to Frey as trustee for the Robert J. Frey Living Trust.

         Plaintiff Harold Blach also holds a judgment against Diaz-Verson. Since 2015, Blach has been attempting to garnish funds owed to Diaz-Verson by his former employer, Garnishee AFLAC, Inc. AFLAC has been paying funds into the registry of the Court pursuant to Blach's garnishments. Frey intervened in the garnishment action, claiming that the Porter Bridge Judgment he was assigned is superior to Blach's. The Court agreed with Frey and ordered the disbursement of $43, 273.42 to Frey in May 2017. See J. (May 9, 2017), ECF No. 181; J. (May 15, 2017), ECF No. 185. The Court declined to disburse funds that were deposited into the Court's registry pursuant to garnishment applications made after May 12, 2016 because it was not clear that the garnishment applications were proper under Georgia's new garnishment statute. See generally Blach v. Diaz-Verson, No. 4:15-MC-5, 2017 WL 1854675 (M.D. Ga. May 8, 2017). The Georgia Supreme Court answered this Court's certified question on the issue. See generally Blach v. Diaz-Verson, No. S17Q1508, 2018 WL 700024 (Ga. Feb. 5, 2018) .

         Based on the Supreme Court's answer, Blach's garnishment applications were proper, and the funds held in the Court's registry pursuant to the following garnishment applications can now be disbursed:

♦ ECF No. 1 in 4:16-mc-6 (5/24/2016, $10, 462.66)
♦ ECF No. 1 in 4:16-mc-7 (7/6/2016, $9, 675.32)
♦ ECF No. 47 in 4:15-mc-5 (8/3/2016, $9, 675.32)
♦ ECF No. 61 in 4:15-mc-5 (8/31/2016, $10, 462.66)
♦ ECF No. 79 in 4:15-mc-5 (9/28/2016, $9, 675.32)
♦ ECF No. 99 in 4:15-mc-5 (10/26/2016, $9, 675.32)
♦ ECF No. 110 in 4:15-mc-5 (11/22/2016, $15, 300.32)
♦ ECF No. 121 in 4:15-mc-5 (12/22/2016, $9, 392.80)
♦ ECF No. 139 in 4:15-mc-5 (1/18/2017, $9, 125.17)
♦ ECF No. 150 in 4:15-mc-5 (2/16/2017, $9, 403.46)
♦ ECF No. 167 in 4:15-mc-5 (3/15/2017, $15, 587.50)
♦ ECF No. 171 in 4:15-mc-5 (4/12/2017, $4, 945.60)
♦ ECF No. 182 in 4:15-mc-5 (5/11/2017, $15, 516.20)
♦ ECF No. 195 in 4:15-mc-5 (6/8/2017, $9, 891.20)
♦ ECF No. 201 in 4:15-mc-5 (7/3/2017, $9, 891.20)
♦ ECF No. 204 in 4:15-mc-5 (8/2/2017, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.