A New Jersey court has ordered a review of funds in a joint bank account after a dispute arose over the ownership of those funds. The ruling affects Catherine Garvey, who is appealing a previous decision that allowed for the seizure of funds from her and her husband’s joint account. This case highlights the complexities involved in determining ownership of funds in joint accounts, especially when disability benefits are involved.

The case, Kathy B. Small, Esq. v. Catherine Garvey, was filed under docket number A-1340-25 in the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division. The court's decision, issued on November 4, 2026, comes after Garvey challenged the legality of a levy imposed on her bank account, which was ordered following a judgment against her.

The parties involved in this case are Kathy B. Small, the plaintiff, and Catherine Garvey, the defendant. Small obtained a judgment against Garvey, which led to a motion to execute a levy on Garvey's bank accounts. The court initially granted this motion on August 15, 2025, allowing Small to seize funds from a TD Bank account jointly owned by Garvey and her husband, Russell Sisto.

Following the court's order, Garvey filed a motion to oppose the levy, claiming that she had not received proper notice of the motion due to it being sent to her attorney's previous address. This resulted in her missing the opportunity to file a timely response. Garvey's opposition included certifications from both herself and Sisto, asserting that the funds in the account were primarily his Social Security Disability income and other benefits, which should be exempt from levy.

On November 7, 2025, the court denied Garvey's motion to vacate the levy, characterizing it as a motion for reconsideration and finding it untimely. The court stated that Garvey had not demonstrated that the court acted irrationally or arbitrarily. However, the court's ruling did not address the ownership of the funds in question, which is central to Garvey's appeal.

In its ruling, the appellate court highlighted the importance of determining the ownership of funds in a joint account when a levy is imposed. The court noted, "When seeking a turnover from a joint account, the judgment creditor has the burden to prove that the moneys thus deposited are the individual property of the judgment debtor, and therefore applicable to the satisfaction of the judgment." This statement underscores the legal principle that funds in joint accounts cannot be presumed to belong solely to one party.

The appellate court found that Garvey had submitted sufficient information regarding the ownership of the funds, raising potential exemptions for Sisto's disability-related income. The court stated, "Because of the gravity and hardship of improperly taking a person's funds, the documents raised an issue of fact regarding the ownership of the funds in the account." This indicates that the court recognized the need for a thorough examination of the evidence presented.

As a result, the appellate court vacated the November 7 order and remanded the case back to the trial court. The trial court is now tasked with reviewing the submitted documents and determining the ownership of the funds in the joint account. This decision is significant as it emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the facts surrounding joint accounts, particularly when disability benefits are involved.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved. It sets a precedent for similar cases where joint accounts are subject to levies, highlighting the necessity for courts to examine the ownership of funds and any potential exemptions. This case may influence how future cases regarding joint accounts and disability benefits are handled in New Jersey.

Moving forward, it remains to be seen how the trial court will approach the review of the joint account's funds. The court's decision to remand the case suggests that it will take the necessary steps to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered before making a final determination. The outcome of this case could have implications for other individuals facing similar situations regarding joint accounts and the protection of disability-related income.

While the appellate court's ruling is final for now, there is always the possibility of further appeals depending on the trial court's findings. The case underscores the importance of proper legal representation and the need for individuals to be aware of their rights when it comes to joint accounts and the potential for levies on their funds.