Shlim v. Charapata, Inc.

Garnishee CML appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Shlim based on a garnishment of a debt owed by CML to defendant Charapata.1 CML argues that it does not owe any money to Charapata and that an unliquidated claim cannot be the subject of a garnishment. We affirm.

Shlim leased commercial property to Charapata, which later subleased the property to CML. Charapata defaulted on its lease obligations. Shlim obtained a Clackamas County Circuit Court judgment against Charapata for $34,543.58 and, in August, 1985, served a writ of garnishment on CML to collect that judgment. At the time of…