Upon review, it did not appear any appellate cases that ruled that garnishment under K.S.A. § 60-734 was invalid because the underlying debt was not collectable. However, there was an absence of cases to contradict that position. As a matter of logic and law, it is reasonable to argue that that an action the Court has been asked to enforce, such as a garnishment, is invalid if the underlying debt is invalid.
While none of the cases provided directly address the validity of a garnishment under K.S.A. § 60-734 due to an uncollectable debt, there are some cases that may be relevant. J.J. v. D.N. holds that a garnishment order is invalid when the underlying judgment is void, which could be analogous to a situation where the underlying debt is not collectable. Bartlett Cooperative Ass’n v. Patton discusses the requirements for a valid garnishment under Kansas law and addresses a situation in which a garnishment was found to be invalid for a different reason (in this case, because the property was exempt from garnishment). Curiel v. Quinn discusses the extent to which a garnishment can reach future payments that are not yet due, which may also be relevant. Finally, City of Wichita v. Obiero discusses the circumstances under which a garnishment may be invalid if the underlying judgment is void or uncollectable.