United States Fire Insurance Company v. Bobby Clanton, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF v. No. 3:24-cv-00388-MPM-RP BOBBY CLANTON, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff United States Fire Insurance Company’s (“C&F”) Motion for Issuance of Writ of Garnishment [26]. The Court, having reviewed the record and applicable case law, is now prepared to rule.

On January 8, 2026, this Court entered a Judgment [25] entering a default judgment against defendants, Bobby Clanton, Kathy Clanton, and Perma Jack Frost SE, LLC in the amount of $1,300,034.75. Plaintiff C&F requests that the Court issue a writ of garnishment against the Bank of Holly Springs who allegedly possesses funds belonging to defendant Kathy Clanton through her checking accounts, savings accounts, or other deposit accounts with the bank.

On June 2, 2026, this Court addressed a similar request to garnish a judgment debtor’s bank accounts by a judgment creditor. See e.g. Apex Com. Cap. Corp v. Mills Util. Constr. of Ms, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00313-MPM-RP, 2026 WL 1552292 (N.D. Miss. June 2, 2026). In that case, the Court noted a growing trend in this district, whereby plaintiffs who obtained judgment, seek to involve this Court and/or the U.S. Marshals in the “nitty gritty” process of collecting upon those judgments. Id. The Court’s role in civil cases traditionally ends once a judgment is entered, and unless the judgment creditor provides binding authority suggesting that this Court is required to involve itself, then this Court is disinclined to involve itself in these matters. Id. Here, C&F wants this Court to involve itself in collecting the judgment obtained against the defendants. C&F provided no authority for why the Court must act beyond a general reference to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and Mississippi law governing post-judgment garnishments. Similar to the conclusion reached in the Apex case, the Court is not convinced that it should involve itself in these collection efforts.

ACCORDINGLY, United States Fire Insurance Company’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Garnishment [26] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2026. /s/Michael P. Mills UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI