The Alabama Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's decision regarding a wage garnishment case involving David Wayne Moore and Cherie Frances Capesius, now known as Cherie Capesius Ginn. The ruling, made on June 26, 2026, affects how garnishments are handled in Alabama, particularly in cases where the garnishee's employment status changes.
In this case, the court ruled that Moore, who had previously won a $1.5 million judgment against Ginn for personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident, was denied his right to orally examine the garnishee, Executive Real Estate Management, Inc. (EREM). The court's decision emphasizes the importance of following proper legal procedures in garnishment actions, which can significantly impact the rights of plaintiffs seeking to collect on judgments.
The dispute began when Moore obtained a default judgment against Ginn in 2005. After reviving the judgment in 2015, Moore initiated garnishment proceedings against EREM, Ginn's employer. EREM began withholding a portion of Ginn's wages as required by the court order. However, in 2024, EREM sold its assets, and in 2025, it filed a motion to release itself from the garnishment, claiming that Ginn was no longer employed by them. Moore contested this motion, arguing that he had the right to examine EREM to verify its claims.
The case reached the Alabama Supreme Court after the Madison Circuit Court granted EREM's motion to release the garnishment without allowing Moore to challenge the assertions made by EREM. Moore's motions to set aside the release and to examine EREM were not ruled on within the required timeframe, leading to his appeal.
The court, led by Justice Jay Sellers, ruled that the trial court erred by not allowing Moore to exercise his right to an oral examination under Alabama law. The court stated, "The trial court improperly denied Moore the right to test the sufficiency of EREM's statements." This ruling highlights the procedural requirements that must be followed in garnishment cases, ensuring that plaintiffs have the opportunity to verify the information provided by garnishees.
The court's decision reverses the lower court's judgment and instructs it to comply with the oral-examination requirement of Alabama Code § 6-6-450. This statute allows plaintiffs to demand an oral examination of the garnishee to gather information relevant to the garnishment.
The ruling has significant implications for future garnishment cases in Alabama. It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and ensures that plaintiffs have the opportunity to challenge the assertions made by garnishees. This decision may also influence how garnishment actions are handled in cases involving corporate entities and their obligations under the law.
Moving forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases where garnishment is contested. It emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in the garnishment process, protecting the rights of plaintiffs like Moore who seek to collect on judgments. The case illustrates the complexities involved in garnishment actions, particularly when corporate entities are involved.
As for what’s next, the case is remanded to the Madison Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling. This means that Moore will have the opportunity to examine EREM regarding its claims and the garnishment process. The court's decision does not appear to leave room for an appeal, as it has already been decided by the highest court in Alabama.