I think she wanted me to question myself and contact the courts in fear of a lawsuit because she somehow knows the quantity of individuals/corporations that I service and thought I would forget her. Good thing I photo copy every single affidavit of service that I draft after I sign it and get it notarized.

I suggest every server I know to either scan to their hard drive(s) or copy every affidavit they ever send. Because, as we know, clients often say they lose them.

I think it does, and so does every other private process server in Texas – but our opinion doesn’t count since we’re not the men in the black dresses.

The problem with fighting the garnishee’s attorney in a garnishment action over the issue is that if you lose, you will have to pay the garnishee’s attorney fees. OUCH!

So how to get around that? The next time I sue out a writ of garnishment on that certain Houston bank, I will also have my attorney ready to file a separate suit for declaratory judgment. If the bank’s lawyers file their motion to quash, I will ask the trial court to put everything on hold while my attorney files the lawsuit for declaratory judgment, and we will try the issue. We will fight it up to the appellate level if we have to. In the end I think that we will prevail, and that bank will end up paying my attorney fees.

The SC is looking to have placed in HB1 and SB1 next session, a budge for $9000 for travel reimbursement for the Ancillary Proceeding Task Force.

The order creating the Ancillary Proceeding Task Force charged them with the duty to make their recommendations to the Supreme Court no later than October 31, 2008,(http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/miscdocket/08/08901000.pdf) on language to make contemporary the Rules governing service of injunctions (Section VI of the TRCP ONLY). Apparently, no recommendations have yet been made, meaning the Task Force failed in its created function. So why is the SC seeking a travel reimbursement budget for a committee that is in existence two years past its charge?

Has the Court issued any secondary miscellaneous dockets extending the time and duty of this committee’s function? If not, I think the Appropriations Committee members need to see the Order creating the task force so they can see the Court is seeking funding for a committee that no longer has a function.

I also think that process servers need to take the bull by the horns and get a bill passed that protects our right to serve civil process, including writs of garnishment. Don’t rely on the TPSA to do this. Their legislative objective seems always to be geared toward benefitting the Court, not process servers.

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.