Legal Opinion

Goralsky v. Taylor

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1991No. 90-942PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.

For the reasons which follow, we hold that the bank was under no obligation to disclose the existence of the trust account, and reverse the finding of contempt.

I

A judgment creditor may collect the amount of the judgment owed from the personal property of the debtor other than earnings through a proceeding commenced by the filing of an affidavit as provided by R.C. 2716.11. A written notice of garnishment is then delivered to the garnishee pursuant to R.C. 2716.13(B). The garnishee is required by R.C. 2716.21(B) to answer this notice within five days, disclosing “* * * the amount owed by him…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ulmer v. Fulton, Supt.Ohio Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Schofield v. Cleveland Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Fourth & Central Trust Co. v. RoweOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Douglas v. HubbardOhio Court of Appeals · 1951
  5. Gall v. Central Trust Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1937

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Needham v. the Provident BankOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. First Bank of Marietta v. MascreteOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Cleveland v. BrightOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. E. Liverpool v. Buckeye Water Dist.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Herbert v. Banc One Brokerage Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API