Neal Gutzmore v. Curtis Bartholomew

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/07/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091059 Neal Gutzmore v. C u r t i s Bartholomew Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-130) THOMAS, J u d g e . Neal Circuit Gutzmore Court appeals from ("the c i r c u i t exemption from garnishment. a judgment court") denying o f t h e Houston h i s claim of We r e v e r s e a n d remand. 2091059 In February 2008, Curtis judgment a g a i n s t Gutzmore. filed a writ Bartholomew obtained On A u g u s t 20, 2009, a money Bartholomew of garnishment i n the Houston D i s t r i c t ("the d i s t r i c t court"), s e e k i n g t o g a r n i s h Gutzmore's On November 5, 2009, Gutzmore filed Court wages. a sworn d e c l a r a t i o n and c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n , c l a i m i n g t h a t h i s wages were exempt f r o m garnishment November under 12, A l a . Const. 2009, 1901, Bartholomew A r t . X, filed an § 204. objection On to G u t z m o r e ' s c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n ; B a r t h o l o m e w ' s o b j e c t i o n was n o t sworn and objection, was not accompanied Bartholomew argued by an that affidavit. Gutzmore had In h i s already r e c e i v e d an e x e m p t i o n u n d e r s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l l a w f o r c e r t a i n amounts o f h i s wages and t h a t Gutzmore h a d f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n of h i s personal property. I n r e s p o n s e , Gutzmore amended h i s c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n , a d d i n g h i s home a d d r e s s . district c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r On November 19, 2009, t h e staying t h e g a r n i s h m e n t and setting a hearing. Both After parties reviewing submitted briefs to the p a r t i e s ' b r i e f s , ore tenus testimony, the d i s t r i c t 2 the district court. and w i t h o u t t a k i n g c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r any on 2091059 May 5, 2010, d e n y i n g Gutzmore's c l a i m of exemption, setting a s i d e i t s s t a y o f g a r n i s h m e n t , and o r d e r i n g t h e g a r n i s h m e n t o f G u t z m o r e ' s wages. Gutzmore a p p e a l e d t h e d i s t r i c t circuit motion court. to Bartholomew dismiss summary j u d g m e n t . circuit court exemption. or, filed i n the court's judgment t o i n the circuit alternative, a the court motion for a A f t e r f u r t h e r b r i e f i n g by b o t h p a r t i e s , e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g Gutzmore's Gutzmore f i l e d c i r c u i t court denied. a postjudgment a the claim motion, which of the Gutzmore s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p e a l e d t o t h i s court. This appeal i n v o l v e s a q u e s t i o n of law. T h e r e f o r e , our r e v i e w i s de novo. D a v i s v. Hanson A g g r e g a t e s S o u t h e a s t , I n c . , 952 So. 2d 330, 3 3 4 ( A l a . 2006). On a p p e a l , Gutzmore a r g u e s t h a t B a r t h o l o m e w ' s Gutzmore's claim of exemption Gutzmore a r g u e s , Bartholomew's of exemption Ala. the levy After ineffective facie correct. a c l a i m of exemption p r o p e r t y c l a i m e d t o be because, o b j e c t i o n was u n s w o r n . i s considered prima Code 1975. was contest to exempt unless there i s endorsed on 3 "shall § A claim 6-10-23, has b e e n n o t be the process the filed, subject fact to that 2091059 there has property is been a waiver on w h i c h t h e contested." of exemption as l e v y i s s o u g h t t o be to the made o r t h e § 6-10-24, A l a . Code 1975. garnishment unless Gutzmore's c l a i m of The Bartholomew properly of claim Gutzmore d i d w a i v e h i s e x e m p t i o n ; t h u s , G u t z m o r e ' s wages c a n n o t be to kind not subject contested exemption. A l a b a m a Supreme c o u r t has held that "a c o n t e s t i s t h e e x c l u s i v e method o f p r e s e r v i n g a l e v y a f t e r a c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n i s f i l e d , Kennedy v. S m i t h , 99 A l a . 83, 11 So. 665 ( 1 8 9 2 ) ; and t h a t a c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n , u n l e s s p r o p e r l y c o n t e s t e d , must be u p h e l d and t h e l e v y o r o t h e r p r o c e s s r e l e a s e d . T o t t e n & B r o s . v. S a l e & Co., 72 A l a . 488 (1883); P o o l e v. Griffith, 216 Ala. 120, 112 So. 447 (1927) Ex p a r t e A v e r y , 514 So. 2d 1380, S e c t i o n 6-10-25, A l a . Code 1975, be followed garnishment. i n order Section to 1381 ( A l a . 1987). provides contest a t h e method t h a t must claim 6-10-25 p r o v i d e s , of exemption in pertinent part: "A p l a i n t i f f , i n p e r s o n o r by h i s o r h e r a g e n t o r a t t o r n e y , may c o n t e s t a c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n a f t e r a d e c l a r a t i o n t h e r e o f has b e e n f i l e d by m a k i n g and f i l i n g w i t h the o f f i c e r h o l d i n g the p r o c e s s an a f f i d a v i t t h a t , i n h i s b e l i e f , e i t h e r the c l a i m i s i n v a l i d e n t i r e l y or i t i s i n v a l i d i n p a r t or i s excessive, s p e c i f y i n g wherein such i n v a l i d i t y or e x c e s s c o n s i s t s , and i f e x c e s s i v e , a l s o s p e c i f y i n g t h e p r o p e r t y a l l e g e d t o be i n e x c e s s , t o be, i n a l l c a s e s , t h e l a s t named i n t h e c l a i m . " 4 from 2091059 (Emphasis added.) In t h i s case, Bartholomew attempted t o c o n t e s t Gutzmore's c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n b y f i l i n g an u n s w o r n o b j e c t i o n . not does which provides meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 6-10-25, This that any c o n t e s t t o a c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n must be made b y affidavit. Accordingly, Gutzmore's Bartholomew d i d not p r o p e r l y c o n t e s t c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n . See G r i f f i n v. Bank S t r e e t F i n . , 587 2d 349, 350 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ( h o l d i n g c l a i m o f e x e m p t i o n was by affidavit ineffective and d i d n o t p r o p e r l y that a contest to a when t h a t c o n t e s t was state that the claim e x e m p t i o n was i n v a l i d o r e x c e s s i v e ) ; Young v. S t r o n g , 2d 27, 28 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ( h o l d i n g was insufficient Bartholomew to contest d i d not contest t h a t an u n s w o r n Gutzmore's not of 694 So. a claim of exemption). properly So. letter Because claim of e x e m p t i o n , t h e e x e m p t i o n must be u p h e l d . See G r i f f i n , 587 So. 2d a t 351; Young, 694 So. 2d a t 28. judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t court to enter court Therefore, and remand we r e v e r s e t h e the cause f o r t h a t a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion. B e c a u s e we h o l d t h a t B a r t h o l o m e w d i d n o t p r o p e r l y Gutzmore's claim of Gutzmore's r e m a i n i n g e x e m p t i o n , we a r g u m e n t s on 5 pretermit appeal. contest discussion of 2091059 REVERSED AND Thompson, REMANDED. P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 6 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.