Supreme Court
Action No. 232 of 1980
9th February, 1982.
Moe, Acting CJ.

Mr. P. Zuniga, for the Judgment Creditor.
Mr. M. Sosa, for the Garnishee.

Civil Practice - Judgment Debtor - Application to attach future rents payable by Garnishee - Whether future monthly rents could be attached - Rent not payable until end of each month - Whether such future rent constitutes an existing debt.

J U D G M E N T

On the 4th December,1981, the Judgment Creditor applied by Summons for the attachment of all amounts payable by the Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor. On the hearing of the application ex parte on the 15th December, 1981 an order nisi was made that all debts due or accruing from the Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor be attached, in particular the sum of U.S. $2,400 per month or its equivalent in Belize currency due on the rental of certain property from the Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor.

The order nisi was served and upon the matter coming on for hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the Garnishee that an order can't be made. The ground of the submission being that the amount sought to be attached becomes due in the future i.e. there is no debt to be attached.

In an Affidavit in support of the application, the Judgment Creditor referred to an agreement under whose terms the amounts are alleged to be due from the Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor. Under that agreement, the Judgment Debtor leased certain goods to the Garnishee for 30 months from the 1st February, 1981 at a rent of $2,420 U.S. for each month the first payment due on the 1st March, 1981. The contention on behalf of the Garnishee is that the monthly rent is not attachable until it becomes payable by the Garnishee.

Counsel for the Judgment Creditor relying on the judgment in Tapp v Jones Pooley (1875) W.R. 694 submitted that an order absolute may be made in respect of the future monthly rent. In Tapp v Jones (supra) payment of an amount already due to the Garnishee was deferred and there was agreement for its payment by installments. Attachment of the amount due was ordered. In that case what was attached, was the debt already in existence. This has been pointed out by Chief Justice Malone in Attorney General v Garnett Action No. 31 of 1974 in which he refused an application to attach the monthly salary or a part thereof payable by the Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor.

In the present case, rent becomes due in accordance with the agreement on a particular day of each month, but until that day, that amount of rent is not payable and this is not a debt until that day. I, therefore, uphold submission on behalf of the Garnishee that the future monthly rents to be paid cannot be attached.

I still had to consider whether there was a known debt under the agreement from the Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor. By virtue of Order 48 R. 2, service of the order nisi on the Garnishee bound all debts then due from him to the Judgment Debtor. But I found nothing before me which showed that the Garnishee owes rent already payable to him or is in any other way, presently, indebted to the Judgment Debtor.

In the result, I find there is no debt to be attached and the order nisi is discharged.

----------OO-----------