Non-Finality of Denial Without Prejudice of Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment Under 28 U.S.C. §1291

Introduction

Natour v. Bank of America, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 5, 2025, clarifies the scope of appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders in post-judgment garnishment proceedings. At issue was whether a district court’s denial without prejudice of a motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment constituted a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and therefore was immediately appealable. Plaintiffs-appellants Nick Natour and Enclare, L.L.C., debtors in a fee award judgment, sought to dissolve garnishment issued in favor of Data Payment Systems, Inc. (“DPS”) after a directed verdict and attorneys’-fees award. The Fifth Circuit held that the denial without prejudice was interlocutory and not appealable for lack of finality, and accordingly dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the district court’s July 18, 2024 order—denying without prejudice the motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment—was a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Concluding that the denial left “something for the court to do” (i.e., await and consider the garnishee’s answer and permit re-filing of the motion), the court held the order interlocutory. The panel distinguished earlier unpublished authority (National Loan Investors v. Fidelity Bank) as factually and procedurally inapposite, and reiterated the Supreme Court’s finality standard from Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment and GeoSouthern Energy Corp. v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc. Because appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders under § 1291 is lacking, the appeal was dismissed without prejudice.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• 28 U.S.C. § 1291: Governs appellate jurisdiction over “final decisions” of district courts.
• Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998): A decision is final only when it “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.”
• GeoSouthern Energy Corp. v. Chesapeake Operating, Inc., 241 F.3d 388, 391 (5th Cir. 2001): Reinforces the above finality test in the Fifth Circuit context.
• National Loan Investors, L.P. v. Fidelity Bank NA, 1995 WL 153421 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 1995): Pre-1996 unpublished case holding denial of garnishment-dissolution motion final—but deemed nonprecedential and distinguished on facts and posture.
• Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co., Inc., 952 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 2015): Confirms that state procedural law (Texas Rules) governs garnishment procedure in a federal-court garnishment action.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

1. Finality Requirement: Section 1291 confers jurisdiction only over “final decisions.” An order denying relief “without prejudice” inherently contemplates further proceedings, and thus cannot be deemed final.
2. Order’s Language and Effect: The district court expressly tied its denial to the absence of an answer by the garnishee (Regions Bank) and invited a renewed motion once that procedural hurdle was cleared. By its own terms, the July 18 order left open the possibility of adjudication on the merits later.
3. Inapplicability of National Loan: The Fifth Circuit concluded that National Loan was factually distinguishable (it involved counterclaims, responsive motions, and a district‐court hearing requirement) and lacked precedential force because it was unpublished and designated nonprecedential.

3. Impact and Significance

This decision reinforces the strict finality requirement for appeals and cautions litigants against premature appeals from interlocutory garnishment orders. Key consequences include:

• Appellants must await a disposition on the merits—either a denial with prejudice or a ruling after the garnishee’s answer—before invoking appellate jurisdiction under § 1291.
• District courts are encouraged to clarify whether their denials are with or without prejudice and to articulate remaining steps needed for resolution.
• Counsel should monitor garnishee answers and, if necessary, re-file dissolution motions promptly rather than seek early appellate review.
• The decision may reduce frivolous interlocutory appeals, streamlining litigation flow in garnishment proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Final Decision: A court order that ends all issues in a case on the merits, leaving nothing for the lower court to do but execute the judgment, and thus can be appealed immediately.
• Interlocutory Order: An order that decides some matter but leaves the case open for further proceedings; generally not appealable under § 1291.
• Without Prejudice vs. With Prejudice: “Without prejudice” means a party may reassert a claim or motion later; “with prejudice” means the claim or motion is finally resolved.
• Writ of Garnishment: A post-judgment procedure by which a judgment creditor seizes assets held by a third party (garnishee) to satisfy a money judgment.
• Supersedeas Bond: A bond posted to stay enforcement of a judgment pending appeal.

Conclusion

Natour v. Bank of America clarifies that a district court’s denial without prejudice of a motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment is interlocutory and not a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. By dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit underscored the importance of waiting for a conclusive ruling on the merits—or for the garnishee’s answer and any renewed motion—before seeking appellate review. The decision promotes efficient case management, prevents premature appeals, and reinforces the finality doctrine in post-judgment garnishment contexts.