Debtors moved to set aside, stay, or refuse a garnishment process seeking to enforce an adjudicator's determination requiring payment of the second draw under a construction contract.
The debtors argued that enforcement would be inequitable and unfair, and would result in double recovery for the contractor through both garnishment and a registered lien.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the adjudicator's determination was binding and enforceable through garnishment, and that the debtors' arguments amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the adjudicator's decision.
The court held that garnishment motions are not intended to review the correctness of the underlying order and that allowing such review would undermine the prompt payment and prompt adjudication provisions of the Construction Act.
