Tinnin v. Tinnin

HOLMES, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 59(e), ARCP, motion to vacate a judgment of garnishment.

The defendant, following the entry of a judgment of garnishment against his employer, moved to vacate the judgment on the grounds that he had not received notice of the issuance of the writ of garnishment and that he had not received notice of the filing of the garnishee’s answer. This motion was denied and the defendant appeals.

The dispositive issue is whether the learned trial judge abused his discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. We are reluctantly compelled to find such…