Clayton County State Court addressed numerous debt‑collection and garnishment matters on Jan. 14, issuing a mix of vacatur orders, denials, and summary‑judgment rulings.

In Prestige Financial Services v. Latoya Knox, the court heard testimony and documentary proof from Knox that she changed residence in early 2024 and did not receive timely notice of the lawsuit. After reviewing the evidence, Judge Hayward said she would vacate the default judgment to allow Knox to participate in the case and ordered the clerk to send paperwork and instructions for updating addresses for service.

By contrast, in First Portfolio v. Jessica Johnson the judge denied a motion to vacate a default because Johnson admitted receiving a summons and failed to file an answer. Judge Hayward explained that the summons sets deadlines and that a failure to follow those instructions can result in default.

In Wells Fargo v. Rasul Fall, Fall contested garnishment and whether service was properly effected. The plaintiff produced a return of notorious service and an affidavit describing an adult present at the address; Fall said the person was his minor son. The court cited Georgia authority holding that a person 15 years or older may accept service and denied the motion to open default, leaving the judgment and garnishment in place.

The court also granted multiple creditor motions for summary judgment where defendants failed to respond to discovery or admissions, including orders entered or to be entered in C & F Finance v. Jennings (deficiency judgment of approximately $10,578.09) and Crown Asset Management v. Mac Freeman (personal‑loan judgment for $11,447.16 plus interest and costs). Wells Fargo’s motion against Demena Rogers was granted in the amounts presented, with the court advising Rogers she could contact plaintiff’s counsel to negotiate a payment plan to avoid post‑judgment collection.

Judge Hayward repeatedly advised defendants that, where a judgment has been entered, communication with creditors and employers (payroll/HR) is necessary to determine whether garnished funds were properly forwarded and whether relief or a satisfaction of judgment is warranted.

The court continued Velocity Investments v. Demetrius King for 30 days to allow submission of pay stubs and garnishment totals after confusion about multiple judgments and garnishments involving different counties.