Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Abbott v. Cunningham

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided May 25, 2012No. 2010-CA-000147-MRPublished

1ConcurrenceThompson, Judge

Respectfully, I concur with the result reached by the majority but expand on its reasoning.

The Kentucky garnishment statute states in part:

If the court finds that the garnishee was, at the time of service of the order upon him, possessed of any property of the judgment debtor, or was indebted to him, and the property or debt is not exempt from execution, the court shall order the property or the proceeds of the debt applied upon the judgment.

KRS 425.501(5). In this case, the trial court found that the retained fees were no longer the property of the debtor-clients because the “flat fees” were…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mastin v. Liberal MarketsKentucky Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Sharp v. CultonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API