Opinion
No. 05-06-00952-CV
Opinion issued April 16, 2008.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 004-3085-05.
Before Justices MORRIS, BRIDGES, and O'NEILL.
Opinion By Justice BRIDGES.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lozano Associates, Inc. appeals the trial court's writ of garnishment in favor of La Experencia. In a single issue, Lozano argues the trial court erred in granting a writ of garnishment on an invalid judgment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. The facts and procedural history are well known to the parties; we do not relate them in detail here.
Garnishment is a statutory proceeding whereby the property, money, or credits of a debtor in the possession of another are applied to the payment of a debt. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 63.001 (Vernon 1997); Tex. R. Civ. P. 657-79; Bank One, Texas v. Sunbelt Sav., 824 S.W.2d 557, 558 (Tex. 1992); Jamison v. Nat'l Loan Investors, L.P., 4 S.W.3d 465, 468 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). Because the remedy of garnishment is purely statutory, we look to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Chapter 63 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code relating to garnishments to determine the respective rights and responsibilities of the parties in a garnishment action. Jamison, 4 S.W.3d at 468. The prerequisites for the issuance of a writ of garnishment after judgment are set forth in the civil practice and remedies code, which provides that such a writ is available if "a plaintiff has a valid, subsisting judgment and makes an affidavit stating that, within the plaintiff's knowledge, the defendant does not possess property in Texas subject to execution sufficient to satisfy the judgment." Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 63.001(3) (Vernon 1997); Jamison, 4 S.W.3d at 468.
In arguing the underlying judgment was invalid, Lozano relies on the same arguments raised in a prior bill of review proceeding. This Court has previously held that the trial court did not err in dismissing Lozano's bill of review because it was unverified and unsupported by sworn evidence. Lozano Associates, Inc. v. La Experencia, No. 05-06-00951-CV, 2007 WL 4465134 (Tex.App.-Dallas Dec. 21, 2007, no pet.). Thus, the underlying judgment remains in place. Because this Court has previously rejected Lozano's attack on the underlying judgment, and Lozano bases his attack on the writ of garnishment solely on its argument that the underlying judgment is invalid, we conclude Lozano's claims lack merit. See id.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.