In Hering v. Norbanco Austin I, Ltd., 735 S.W.2d 638 (Tex. App.--Austin 1987, writ denied), the plaintiff-creditor did not serve the defendant-debtor with a copy of the writ of garnishment, so that the debtor had no notice of the garnishment proceeding until he discovered it accidentally. Id. at 639.
The court held that actual notice of the garnishment proceeding did not supplant the requirement to serve the garnishment writ on the defendant-debtor in compliance with rule 663a. Id. at 641.
In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that rule 663a had been amended in 1978 to provide that debtors in post-judgment garnishment proceedings (to whom Texas courts had previously held that notice did not need to be provided) be given the same notice that debtors in pre-judgment garnishment proceedings already enjoyed. See id. at 640-41.
This was not a holding that all garnishment rules apply identically at all stages of the underlying litigation, but is instead a holding that Due Process requires that the debtor receive notice of the garnishment proceeding both pre- and post-judgment. See id.