The Supreme Court’s most recent amendment to Rule 103 intended to specifically target writs of garnishment as a document private process servers could deliver, by referring to writs not requiring immediate enforcement action.

Private service of writs of garnishment is an authority that has been settled with finality both by the courts and by the TRCP.

Great information. The constables are absolutely trying to take everything they can away from us. I have been at two meetings where I witnessed this first hand.

At one meeting before the Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committee, Constable Ron Hickman, Pct. 4, Harris County tried to convince them that not only were we prohibited from serving WOGs, but ALL WRITS! It didn’t work, and I informed the Committee that private servers have been serving WOGs for a long time and the amendments to Rules 103 & 536(a) TRCP had clarified the matter once and for all. The Committee agreed and recommended the Supreme Court change the 663 rules to conform with 103; that hasn’t happened yet. Feel free to write a letter to the Tx. Supreme Court.

At the other meeting, a different constable (I forget his name) tried to tell the Supreme Court’s Ancillary Proceedings Task Force (Boy, that’s some name!) that only sheriffs and constables should serve anything that MIGHT need an enforcement action like TROs, Injunctions, even subpoenas by their reasoning. They mistakenly think that when they serve a writ that says a husband has to leave the home, for instance, that they are suppose to stand there while the guy grabs his car keys and razor so the cop can escort him out immediately, and they want the power to arrest him on the spot if he doesn’t comply. They tried to change the law/rule, but I don’t think it happened.

Thanks again Marc,
Tod Pendergrass