NBCUniversal Media, LLC v. Walker et al. - Default Judgment

In th e Supr eme C ourt o f Georg ia Decided: Feb rua ry 3, 2026 S25D072 3, S2 5A098 6. NBCUN IVERSAL MEDIA, LLC v. WALKER et a l. M C M I LLIAN, Justice. Afte r NBCU niversa l Media, LLC (“ NBCU”) failed t o time ly answe r a summons of co ntinuing ga rnishme nt, a defa ult judgme nt in ex cess o f $5 00,0 00 w as en ter ed ag ain st it even thou gh NB CU asserts tha t if it h ad timel y ans wer ed or had tri ed to open th e def ault soo ner, i t wou ld h ave ow ed less tha n $1,0 00. N BCU t ried t o s et aside the d efault judgme nt u nder OCGA § 9 - 11 - 60(d)(3), rai sing both facial and as - applied cons titutio nal cha llenges t o Georgia’ s cont inuing gar nishment defa ult stat ute, OCGA § 18 -4 - 43(a), 1 under 1 This statute provid es that, [w]hen a garnis hee fails o r refuses to file a garnishee answer at least once every 45 days, such garni shee shall a utomatically be in default. The default may be opened as provided in Cod e Secti on 18 - 4- 21. If the case is s till in default after the expiration o f the period NOTICE: T his opini on is subje ct to mo dificat ion res ultin g from motion s for re consi derat ion unde r Supre me C ourt Rule 27, the Co urt’s rec onsiderat ion, a nd editori al revisi ons by t he Report er of Decis ions. Th e versio n of the opinion publis hed in the Advance Sheets fo r the Geo rgia Repo rts, d esignat ed as the “Fi nal Copy,” will replac e any prior version on the Court’s websi te and docket. A bound volu me of the Georgi a Reports will con tain the final a nd officia l text of t he opinio n.

2 the du e pr ocess cl auses of th e fed eral and Ge orgi a co nsti tuti ons an d the Geo rgia Co nstitutio n’s Exce ssive Fine s Clause. In re spons e, th e garnis hor, Hev eki ah Wal ker, argued that N BCU cannot s how tha t a nonam end able defe ct ap pe ars on the face of the rec ord or plea dings, s ee OCGA § 9 - 11 - 60(d)(3), and that th e garnish men t defaul t statute does not vi ol ate th e se const itutio nal prov isions. A ft e r t he tri al c ourt d eni ed the m otion in a summ ary or der, NBCU file d a discre tionar y applica tion in t his Cour t, which wa s gr a nted. “It is incumb ent upon t his Court to inquir e into it s own jurisd ictio n. ” Je nkins v. Sta te, 284 Ga. 642, 642 (2008) (cit ation s an d punct uatio n omitt ed). This case is be fore us pursuant to our exclus ive a ppellat e jurisd ictio n of “all ca ses in which the cons titut ionalit y of a la w … has been drawn in qu esti on.” G a. Con st. 198 3, Art. VI, S ec. VI, Pa r. I I(1). For a c onst itutio nal ques tion t o fall of 15 days, judg ment by default may be entered at any time thereafter against such gar nishee for the amount r emaini ng due on the judgment obtained against the defendant a s shown in the plaintiff’s affidavit o f continuing gar nishment. OCGA § 18-4- 43(a).

3 within the jurisdic tion of this Court, such an issue must also be raised bef ore th e tri al c ourt, disti nctl y rul ed up on b y that cour t, an d enum erated as erro r on appe al. See Barzey v. City of Cuthb ert, 2 95 Ga. 641, 643 (201 4). W e have he ld tha t the dist inct r uling requir ement ma y be me t by n ecess ary i mpl icatio n, i nclu ding by summar y ruling that neces sarily must have p assed on the consti tution al qu esti on rais ed in order to reach th e ruli ng. See Wil kes & McHugh, P. A. v. LTC Cons ulti ng, L.P., 306 Ga. 252, 25 6– 5 7 (201 9) (con clu din g that the Cou rt of App eals p roperly tr ansfe rred the case to th is Cou rt bas ed on plaint iffs ’ const itutiona l challe nge, “which t he tr ial cour t implic itly r ejecte d in de nying the defend ants’ motio n”); Rous e v. Dep ’ t of Na t. R es., 271 Ga. 726, 728 (1 999) (juris dict ion was proper i n thi s Cou rt desp ite l ack of expli cit t rial court ruling on constit utiona l cha llenges to sta tute where “ the tria l court m ust n ec essari ly h ave reje cted each of th ose is sues to affi rm the a dminist rative d ecision”). Here, the trial cou rt’s summary order d oes n ot d isti nctly or nece ssarily rule on the const itutional c halle nges bec ause it is

4 possibl e that th e tri al cou rt deni ed th e motion to set asi de based on Walker ’s argu men t that NBCU has faile d to show a no namend able defect which appears on the fac e of the re cord or p leadi ng s as requir ed by OC GA § 9 - 11 - 60(d)(3). In fa ct, Wa lker sp ecifi call y argued a t the h eari ng on the mo tion t hat t he tr ial court did not need to re ach the novel co nstit utiona l quest ions by resolving t he motion based on th e sta tu tory iss ue. As a d istinct ruling on a proper ly raise d constit utional is sue is a req uirement for invok ing this Co urt’s j urisdict ion, and see ing no other basi s for ou r jurisdi ction, we con clude th at th is C ourt l acked jurisd ictio n to grant N BCU’s disc retion ary a ppli cati on in Case No. S25D 0723. See City of D ecat ur v. DeKal b Coun ty, 284 Ga. 434, 43 6 (2008) (“When the appel late re cor d fail s to show th at the tri al cou rt ruled on the const itutio nal ques tion, this Court is without jurisd ictio n of an appeal in whic h this Co urt’s exclusive appe llate jurisd ictio n of constit utiona l issue s i s inv oked, and the ap peal is transf err ed to th e Cou rt of A ppe al s.”). Ac cordi ng ly, w e vacat e the grant o f the discr etion ary ap pli cation in C ase No. S25D0 723,

5 transf er th e appl ication to th e Co urt of Appeals, and dismiss this appeal. See i d. Prior judgment gr ant i ng appli cation va cated an d appli cation transf erred in Case No. S25D0 723. App eal dismi ssed in Ca se N o. S25A0 986. Al l th e Ju stic es con cur.

6 P ETERSON, Chief Just ice, co ncurring. I join t he opinion o f the Court in full. I writ e s epar ately to expla in what t he current version o f the gar nishment defa ult judgme nt sta tute a llows, and why the Gene ral Asse mbly sho uld consi der am endi ng th e stat ute. A frivolous lawsuit is filed against a j udgment - proof defen dant who doe sn’t both er to respon d; the d efend ant’s fail u re to respon d res ults in a default j udgment for te ns or hundre ds of millio ns of dolla rs. That judgment, of cour se, is not worth even t he pap er it’s print ed o n as to th e ass etles s d efend ant again st w hom i t was rendered. Bu t the p laintif f can then send out hund red s or even thous ands o f garn ish ments to larg e comp anies w ith lots of asse ts (and n o conn ecti on to th e de fend ant) in hopes t hat on e of the m makes a si mpl e mi stake an d dro ps the b all on respon din g. Th e plaint iff ha s now ma nufac tured a n eight - or nine - f igure wind fall from th e d eep p ock ets o f a comp any whos e onl y fa ult w as a fail ure to retu rn paperw ork ti mely. If this all seems a bit overdr amatic, this isn’ t just a

7 hypot hetica l. The At torne y Gene ral gave t his pr ecise war ning in an amicu s brie f in a s imi lar c ase h ere las t yea r in volvi ng a tardy garni shee w ith z er o assets of t he def endan t an d n everthel ess hit with a $ 20 m illion d efault judgme nt. Amic us Brie f of At torne y General at 25 – 28, RBC Global A sset Mgmt. (U.S.), Inc. v. L attimore, 320 Ga. 7 7 (2024). Th e Atto rney General ack nowl edged that us ing the ga rnishme nt de fault j udgment sta tute to “entrap unwary t hird parti es” ra ther than to sim ply locat e a j udgm ent d ebto r’s funds “would raise a host of ethic al, as well a s const itutiona l questio ns.” Id. at 10. E ven so, w e res olv ed th at cas e on the merits of th e statut ory a rgu men ts pres ent ed, s o w e did not reach th e meri ts of the cons titut ional c hallenges. See RBC Global A ss et Mgmt., 32 0 Ga. at 79 n.3. Similarly, here, we a re un able t o rea ch th e consti tuti onal argum ents pr esen ted by NBC U. So we have now a t least twic e failed to re ach v ery s erious const ituti on al arg umen ts ag ain st ce rtai n app licatio ns of the gar nishment defa ult judgm ent stat ute. See id. I agre e with the At torne y General: the garnis hment de fault judgme nt sta tute is o n ques tiona ble co nstitut iona l footing, a t lea st

8 as to th e Ex cessi ve F ines Clau se of th e G eorgi a Con stitu tion. See Ga. Con st. of 1 983, A rt. I, Sec. I., Par. X VII. Our inability to reach the mer its of the const itutio nal issues should no t be unde rstood as discou ntin g th eir seri ousnes s. A nd i t appear s that the pr oblem ati c app licatio ns of the ga rnishme nt defa ult judgm ent stat ute may be incre asing. 2 We will have to decide t he const itutional q uestio ns eventua lly, unless t he Ge neral Ass embly revise s the st atute t o place some meaning ful ca p on the amount of po ssible defa ult judgm ents r elativ e to the j udgme nt de btor ’s as sets hel d by th e def aulti ng p arty. It is approp riat e to im pose a penalt y on the fai lure t o res pond t imel y to a garn ish ment; t he pr obl em is not the exis tenc e of a pen alty, bu t th e imm ense pot enti al magn itu de of the pen al ty the s tatut e cu rren tly 2 This Court has recently denied app lications for interlocutory or discretionary appea l in at least t wo cases inv olving garnishment default judgments. See Reedy Branch Lod ge, Inc. v. Nutrien AG S olutions, Inc., Case No. S23D1114 (Aug. 4, 2023) (deny ing applic ation for di scretionary ap peal from trial court ord er denying a m otion to set as ide a $500,000 gar nishment default judgment); Cheston- T hornton v. Allstate Financ ial Services, LLC, C ase No. S21I0278 (Oct. 2 9, 2020) (denying ap plication for interlocutory appe al from trial court order granting motion to set aside a $1 billion garnishment def ault judgment).

9 imposes. The Gener al Asse mbly should seriously c onsid er add ressing it. I am au thori zed to s tate that Pres idin g Ju stice War ren an d Just ice Bet hel, Justic e LaGrua, a nd Justice Colvin join in this concur renc e.