Short answer. Yes. The court may authorize you, as judgment obligee, to sue that person or corporation directly to recover the interest or debt. The court's order can also forbid transferring or disposing of the disputed interest or debt for 120 days from notice, punishable as contempt if disobeyed.

What the law says

If it appears that a person or corporation, alleged to have property of the judgment obligor or to be indebted to him, claims an interest in the property adverse to him or denies the debt, the court may authorize, by an order made to that effect, the judgment obligee to institute an action against such person or corporation for the recovery of such interest or debt, forbid a transfer or other disposition of such interest or debt within one hundred twenty days from notice of the order, and may punish disobedience of such order as for contempt. Such order may be modified or vacated at any time by the court which issued it, or by the court in which the action is brought, upon such terms as may be just.

Rule 39, Section 43 — Proceedings when indebtedness denied or another person claims the property. Read the full provision →

The scenario this covers

This section covers a situation where a person or corporation alleged to hold property of the judgment obligor, or to owe him a debt, does not simply admit it but instead claims an interest in the property that is adverse to the obligor, or denies the debt outright, complicating the earlier examination proceedings under Sections 37 and 38. Without a mechanism to push past that denial, the judgment obligee could be left holding an unenforceable judgment despite evidence that the obligor has recoverable assets somewhere.

Authorizing a separate action, and freezing the disputed interest

Faced with that denial, the court may authorize, by an order to that effect, the judgment obligee to institute a separate action against that person or corporation to recover the disputed interest or debt. The same order may also forbid a transfer or other disposition of that interest or debt for one hundred twenty days from notice of the order, with disobedience of that restriction punishable as contempt.

The order isn't fixed forever

This authorizing order is not set in stone once issued. It may be modified or vacated at any time, either by the court that issued it in the first place, or by whatever court the resulting action is eventually brought in, upon such terms as may be just to the parties involved. This flexibility lets the court adjust or lift the freeze on the disputed interest as the separate action develops, rather than locking the parties into the original order indefinitely.

Why a separate action, rather than summary enforcement

The rule does not let the court simply order the third party to pay based on the obligor's earlier examination alone, because that third party was never a party to the original case and denies owing anything in the first place. Authorizing a full separate action against them preserves their right to contest the claim on the merits, while the accompanying freeze on the disputed interest or debt keeps the asset from disappearing while that separate action is litigated.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.