is held, existing at the time the remedy is sought, except that any statute of the United States governs to the extent that it is applicable. Accordingly, JRH’s garnishment proceedings are effectuated pursuant to Michigan law, but the garnishments were issued based on authority of this Court’s judgment and the garnishee defendants filed their disclosures in this Court. If the garnishee defendants had simply not answered the garnishments, it is clear that under MCR 3.101(S)(1), the Court would have entered judgments against them and would have had the subject matter jurisdiction to do so. See, e.g., First Tenn. Bank. Nat’l Assoc. v. Warner (In re Warner), 191 B.R. 705 (Bankr.W.D.Tenn.1996). See also McMahan & Co. v. Po Folks, Inc., 206 F.3d 627, 633, 2000 Fed.App. 0083P (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Court concludes that when a garnishee
holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances holding that a garnishee defendant has an independent duty to refrain from conduct that would obstruct enforcement of the judgment holding that an employer through its employees did not breach an independent duty to power company not to come in contact with power companys transmission lines because such a duty is a general duty not an independent one holding that although defendant president of defendant leasing company did not sign lease in his individual capacity and could have an independent wellrecognized obligation imposed by tort law to refrain from intentional interference with a prospective business advantage economicloss rule barred tenants tort claim because source of defendants duty not to interfere with assignment of lease was parties lease agreement and thus it was improper to analyze the existence of an independent tort duty in determining whether an economic loss may be recovered holding that even if there is no independent duty to account a servicemember who lies in an oral statement to a law enforcement agent conducting an investigation as part of his duties has violated article 107