Breach of contract; Garnishment; Objections to a writ of garnishment; MCR 3.101(K)(1) & (2); Construction of garnishment proceedings; Westland Park Apts. v. Ricco, Inc.; Principle that those not a party or privy to an action are unaffected by the judgment rendered in that action; Eyde v. Michigan; Damm v. Mason; Indemnity; Langley v. Harris Corp.; Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ajax Paving Indus., Inc.

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff-lender’s writ of garnishment. It also held that the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s divorce judgment eliminated his liability was erroneous. Plaintiff sought a writ of garnishment against defendant for failing to pay a home equity loan. The trial court sustained defendant’s objection to the writ on the ground that his ex-wife had assumed the debt in their divorce. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s objection, finding that his objections and the trial court’s decision to sustain them were based “on a conclusion that the underlying judgment was invalid in light of the divorce judgment.” Because defendant’s “challenge to the writ of garnishment was based on the validity of the underlying judgment and not the garnishment proceeding itself, his objections should have been rejected by the trial court.” The court also found that the basis of the trial court’s ruling was itself erroneous. “The divorce judgment was entered in a separate proceeding to which” plaintiff was not a party and thus, plaintiff was not bound by the judgment, nor did it absolve defendant of his liability. “The judgment of divorce stated that [his ex-wife] would ‘assume the full amount of the joint debt,’” and that she “would ‘indemnify and hold [defendant] harmless.’ By stating that [she] would indemnify [him] with regard to the debt, the judgment only addressed liability for the debt as between” the two of them. Defendant could still be liable to plaintiff but could maintain an action against his ex-wife “to indemnify him for his liability.” Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the writ of garnishment.