The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision regarding a wage garnishment case involving Cynthia Bachus and Jessica Myers Kenington. The court's ruling, issued on October 23, 2026, impacts how judgments and garnishments are handled in Alabama, particularly when multiple parties are involved in a debt. The case underscores the importance of due process in legal proceedings.

Cynthia Bachus filed an appeal against Jessica Myers Kenington after the Montgomery Circuit Court quashed a writ of garnishment against Myers's income. The court's decision to reverse the lower court's ruling means that the garnishment can proceed, affecting Myers's wages. This case highlights the complexities of debt collection and the legal rights of individuals facing garnishment.

Background

The dispute began in 2014 when Cynthia Bachus initiated legal action against John Laken Kenington and Jessica Myers Kenington. Bachus claimed that the defendants had breached a residential lease agreement and caused damage to the leased property. In December 2015, the trial court entered a consent judgment against Kenington for $19,150.60, plus court costs, and a default judgment against Myers for the same amount, as her whereabouts were unknown at the time.

Despite the judgments, there was little collection activity until December 2024, when Bachus filed for a writ of garnishment against Myers, claiming a total owed amount of $29,963.64, which included principal, interest, and court costs. Myers, acting pro se, contested the garnishment, asserting that she had not been properly notified of the original complaint and that she was not responsible for the debt due to her divorce from Kenington.

The Ruling

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, led by Judge Fridy, ruled that the Montgomery Circuit Court had erred in quashing the writ of garnishment and satisfying the judgment against Myers. The court stated, "Based on the facts before this [c]ourt, [Bachus] is not honoring the original agreement with [Myers]." The ruling emphasized that the trial court failed to provide Bachus with due process, particularly by not allowing her to present her arguments regarding the garnishment.

The appellate court found that the trial court had raised the affirmative defense of estoppel without giving Bachus notice or an opportunity to respond. The court noted that the trial court's decision to quash the garnishment appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of the terms of the 2025 consent agreement between Bachus and Myers. The court concluded that the condition for releasing Myers from liability had not been met, as Bachus had not collected the entire amount owed from Kenington.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving wage garnishments and joint liabilities in Alabama. It reinforces the necessity for courts to adhere to due process standards, ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case. The appellate court's decision clarifies that a party cannot be relieved of their liability without proper legal proceedings and that any agreements made must be honored according to their terms.

The ruling also serves as a reminder to individuals involved in legal disputes about the importance of being informed and involved in proceedings that may affect their financial obligations. The decision may encourage more individuals to contest garnishments and seek legal representation to protect their rights.

What's Next