Garnishment; Whether a garnishee defendant may file an objection to a writ of garnishment; MCR 3.101(A)(1)-(3); MCR 3.101(E)(3), (K), & (J); Effect of an amendment to the court rule; Availability of an alternative mechanism for a garnishee to contest the writ of garnishment; MCR 3.101(M)

In an issue not previously addressed in a published opinion, the court held that a garnishee defendant may not file an objection to a writ of garnishment. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of garnishee defendant-Auto-Owners’ objection and denial of its motion to quash the writ. The trial court ruled “that only a defendant, not a garnishee defendant, could file an objection to a writ of garnishment.” The court agreed. It noted that throughout “MCR 3.101, ‘plaintiff’ refers to the judgment creditor, ‘defendant’ refers to the judgment debtor, and ‘garnishee’ refers to the garnishee defendant.” MCR 3.101(E)(3), which provides the instructions the writ must give the garnishee, “makes no mention of the garnishee filing an objection.” MCR 3.101(K) governs the procedure for objections. “MCR 3.101(K)(1) does not specify who may file an objection with the court.” Due to the use of passive voice in the rule, the court had “to determine whether the drafters of the court rules intended to permit a garnishee to file” an objection. It concluded that while “MCR 3.101(K)(1) does not identify the objecting party, additional language within that subrule and other provisions gives context to the drafter’s intent that the defendant is the only party who may file an objection. First, the time limits for filing an objection refer to the date of service of the writ on the defendant, or the date of the most recent statement sent to the defendant.” The court determined that “using service on the defendant as the trigger for time limits on the filing of objections suggests that only defendants—and not garnishees—may file an objection.” In addition, the court rules set forth “particular grounds on which an objection must be based.” The court noted that “MCR 3.101(K)(1) contemplates the objections of a defendant—a party who might otherwise attempt to challenge the validity of the underlying judgment had the court rules not prohibited that.” It also concluded a plain reading of “MCR 3.101(J), as with other subrules, supports the interpretation that only defendants may file objections.” It further noted that “express language recognizing that a garnishee could raise an objection” was removed by amendments to MCR 3.101. And there are provisions in the rule “providing an alternative mechanism for a garnishee to contest the writ of garnishment.”