[UNPUBLISHED]

In 1996, David J. Bening, and Alfred W. and Bernice Harre obtained judgments against attorney Arthur G. Muegler. Ben-ing and the Harres were represented by Thomas G. Berndsen, who filed an attorney’s lien for his contingency fee. Mue-gler filed for bankruptcy in Arizona and listed the judgments, but the bankruptcy court found the judgments were nondis-chargeable. In 2002 Muegler represented Hoodco, Inc. in a property insurance lawsuit involving Employers Mutual Casualty Insurance Company. The parties settled for $725,000. Employers Mutual deposited the money in the court’s registry and filed an interpleader action. Muegler, his judgment creditors Bening and the Har-res, and Berndsen were listed as interested persons. Muegler claimed his attorney’s fee was exempt from garnishment. Bening, the Harres, and Berndsen asserted they were entitled to Huegler’s fee as his judgment creditors. The district *848 court * denied Muegler’s claimed garnishment exemption as meritless and concluded that because the judgments against him were greater than Muelger’s share, Mue-gler was not entitled to any part of the distribution.

Muegler appeals asserting the district court committed error in denying his claimed garnishment exemption. Muegler made the same arguments before the district court in several earlier cases, however, and his claims were rejected. We affirmed. Thus, the district court correctly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel and denied Muegler’s claimed exemptions. Further, as the district court explained, Muegler’s attorney’s fees are not exempt from garnishment under either 15 U.S.C. § 1673(a) or Mo.Rev.Stat. § 525.030.2 because he is an independent contractor. The district court’s decision did not violate any of Muegler’s constitutional rights. Last, the district court properly denied Muegler’s affirmative defense because the district court knew the bankruptcy court determined Muegler’s debt is not dis-chargeable.

Having carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude the district court properly decided this case. Because there is no need for additional explanation, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s memorandum and orders. See 8th Cir. 47B.