Townsquare Media Tuscaloosa License v. Moore

374 So.3d 705

TOWNSQUARE MEDIA TUSCALOOSA LICENSE, LLC

v.Karen Kelly MOORE

2210386

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 7, 2022

* Note from the reporter of decisions: Judge Langham, retired circuit judge, Morgan County, was appointed to serve temporarily as a circuit judge in the 10th Judicial Circuit.

Katherine Suttle Weinert and Rachel C. Paulk of Littler Mendelson, P.C. Birmingham, for appellant.

Submitted on appellant’s brief only.

FRIDY, Judge.

Townsquare Media Tuscaloosa License, LLC ("Townsquare"), appeals from a judgment of garnishment that the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the trial court") entered ordering Townsquare to pay $25,000 plus costs to Karen Kelly Moore. We affirm.

Background

Moore and her former husband, Jeffrey Scott Moore ("the former husband"), divorced in September 2006. The former husband did not pay his child-support obligation to Moore as had been ordered, and on August 21, 2008, the trial court entered a judgment, based in part on Moore and the former husband’s stipulations, finding that the former husband was in arrears on his child-support obligation in the amount of $21,750 plus $217.50 in interest. The trial court also found that the former husband owed Moore $537.81 for medical expenses that Moore had incurred on behalf of their child and $8,787 for past-due alimony. Overall, Moore’s award totaled $31,292.31.

On October 22, 2020, Moore filed a process of garnishment naming Townsquare, the former husband’s alleged employer, as the garnishee to recover the $31,292.31 awarded to her in the August 2008 judgment, interest on the amount owed of $45,373.85, and costs of $106, for a total of $76,772.16. Townsquare was served with the process of garnishment on October 23, 2020. Townsquare failed to file an answer, and on July 23, 2021, Moore filed a motion for a conditional judgment. See § 6-6-457, Ala. Code 1975 (providing that, if a garnishee fails to appear and answer, a conditional judgment must be entered against it for the amount of the plaintiff's claim, as ascertained by the judgment). The trial court entered a conditional judgment against Townsquare on September 29, 2021. The trial court wrote in the conditional judgment that, at a hearing on September 21, 2021, Thomas "Tommy" Paradiso of Townsquare testified that he had turned the process of garnishment over to another Townsquare employee who had later instructed him to "disregard" the process of garnishment. A transcript of that September 21, 2021, hearing is not included in the record.

On October 18, 2021, Townsquare filed a motion to set aside the conditional judgment on the ground that it had not employed the former husband from the time it was served with the process of garnishment through October 18, 2021. It also filed its answer to the process of garnishment that same day. On October 27, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to set aside the conditional judgment. As with the September 21 hearing, a transcript of the October 27 hearing is not included in the record on appeal. After the hearing, the trial court entered an order giving the parties additional time to submit briefs on their positions, particularly on the issue of the trial court’s discretion, if any, to enter a final judgment against Townsquare.

Following the parties’ submissions of briefs, the trial court entered a final judgment on December 30, 2021. In its judgment, the trial court noted that Townsquare did not answer the process of garnishment until nearly a year after it had been served. It also found that the human-resources operations manager of Townsquare Media Group in New York, Katie Maricle, had notified Audrey Hays, the accounting manager of Townsquare, by email to disregard the process of garnishment and that Hays had "opted" to do so. Recounting testimony from the October 2021 hearing, the trial court wrote that David Dubose, the "market president" of Townsquare, had testified that he knew the former husband, that he had signed all the checks and outside contracts for employees of Townsquare, that either he or Hays had handled all writs of garnishment that Townsquare's Tuscaloosa office had received, and that, in October 2020, when the process of garnishment was served in this matter, Townsquare had fewer than fifty employees. The trial court noted that, in August 2019, a conditional judgment had been entered against Townsquare in a different case in the trial court, following which Townsquare had filed an answer within thirty days and the trial court had set aside that conditional judgment. Additionally, the trial court wrote that Dubose "could not explain why a garnishment in this pending matter for the significant sum of $76,772.16 was ‘disregarded’ when all the prior garnishments for less than $2,000 had been answered." It also noted that Dubose admitted that the process of garnishment Townsquare had received directed the recipient to complete and file an answer on an enclosed form within thirty days from service, notified the recipient that failure to answer could result in a judgment against the recipient, and included the warning: "YOU MUST ANSWER." (Capitalization in original.) The trial court then wrote:

"This Court deems the behavior of the Garnishee, Townsquare, as intentional, unacceptable, and egregious. Counsel for the Garnishee, citing a Tennessee case, noted that a Conditional Judgment is a ‘shot across the bow,’ and ‘a threat of a final judgment if a response is not forthcoming.’ Smith v. Smith, 165 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). It is this Court’s opinion and finding that Townsquare had its ‘shot across the bow’ when a Conditional Judgment was entered against it by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County in Case Number SM-17- 901494 on August 15, 2019, a little over one year from being served with a Process of Garnishment in this cause. The Garnishee, in the opinion of this Court, is not entitled to a ‘shot across the bow’ each and every time Townsquare is served with a Process of Garnishment. In the prior cause of action, the creditoragreed to the Conditional Judgment being set aside. However, in this cause, the Creditor, Karen Kelly Moore, demands the Conditional Judgment be made a Final Judgment. This Court further notes that the Defendant, Karen Kelly Moore, fully complied with the Laws of Alabama in this matter and spent considerable time and money attempting to collect on this Process of Garnishment.

"The language in a Process of Garnishment is written in plain English that is easily understood by the average citizen. The laws of the State of Alabama are to be honored and complied with by the Garnishee. The actions of the Garnishee, Townsquare, in this cause are cavalier, insulting to the sensibilities of this Court, contemptuous, intentional, fraught with conscious indifference and simply unacceptable based on the peculiar circumstances in this case. However, this Court deems that a judgment for the full amount of the Garnishment against the Garnishee would be Draconian."

Based on its findings, the trial court awarded Moore $25,000 plus costs against Townsquare. Townsquare filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.

Analysis

[1] Townsquare argues that, pursuant to § 6-6-457, Ala. Code 1975, it was entitled to have the conditional judgment set aside because it answered the process of garnishment within thirty days of the entry of the conditional judgment. That statute provides:

"If the garnishee fails to appear and answer, a conditional judgment must be entered against him for the amount of the plaintiff's claim, as ascertained by his judgment, to be made absolute unless he appears within 30 days after notice of the conditional judgment issued by the clerk, to be served on him, as other process, by the sheriff. If he fails to appear within the time required by the notice served upon him or if two notices are returned ‘not found’ by the sheriff of the county in which the garnishment was executed, the judgment must be made absolute."

Townsquare argues that § 6-6-457 affords a trial court no discretion in applying that statute and requires a trial court to set aside a conditional judgment when the garnishee has properly appeared and answered within thirty days after service of notice of the conditional judgment. In support of its contention, Townsquare relies on Olson v. Field Enterprises Educational Corp., 45 Ala. App. 438, 441, 231 So. 2d 763, 765 (Civ. App. 1970), in which the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court could not properly apply a local law requiring a garnishee to answer a process of garnishment within ten days of the filing of a conditional judgment when state garnishment statutes allowed a garnishee thirty days in which to answer. That holding, Townsquare argues, illustrates that trial courts cannot deviate from § 6-6-457.

[2-4] In interpreting a statutory provision, "a court is required to ascertain the intent of the legislature as expressed and to effectuate that intent." Tuscaloosa Cnty. Comm’n v. Deputy Sheriffs’ Ass’n of Tuscaloosa Cnty., 589 So. 2d 687, 689 (Ala. 1991).

"Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect."

IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992).

The plain language of § 6-6-457 mandates that a final judgment must be entered if a garnishee does not answer or appear within thirty days of the entry of a conditional judgment. Contrary to Townsquare’s assertion, however, the inverse is not true; that is to say, no language in § 66-457 requires a trial court to set aside a conditional judgment simply because a garnishee has answered within the time allotted. Likewise, Olson...