IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

BMO HARRIS BANK NA PLAINTIFF

Vv. No. 3:15-cv-247-DPM

BLAND FAMILY FARMS, LLC; SARAH BLAND; and JAMEY BLAND DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. G.E. Capital’s first motion for service of a writ of execution, Doc. 30, is denied without prejudice. It was mooted by its second motion. 2. G.E. Capital's second motion for service of a writ of execution, Doc. 32, is denied without prejudice. The Clerk issued a writ in June 2023. By its terms, though, the writ was valid for one year. Doc. 29 at 1. G.E. Capital did not move for service by the U.S. Marshal until November 2024. Plus, G.E. Capital argues that the Blands may have wages subject to collection. Doc. 33 at 2. Whatever cash they might have in their pockets on a given day would be subject to execution. But a writ of garnishment is the better way to reach wages. E.g., Moory v. Quadras, Inc.,

,

(1998).

So Ordered. WIA astall D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge g Jom Vay was

_2-