解释见内， vacate 是使这个judgment不再有效

Conditional judgments are just that – conditional. They are not the same as final judgments. The court explained in Smith v. Smith, 165 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), that, unlike default judgments entered for failing to respond to a complaint, conditional judgments for failing to respond to a garnishment are not punitive. Rather, conditional judgments are meant to put the garnishee (you – the one receiving the garnishment) on notice that an answer must be filed. It is an enforcement tool to make the garnishee respond to garnishment. The entry of a conditional judgment is a threat of final judgment if you fail to answer to the garnishment. After the conditional judgment is entered, you will be given an opportunity to appear before the court and explain why you should not be responsible for your employee’s debt. “[T]he conditional judgment gives ‘another opportunity’ to the garnishee to ‘answer the garnishment.'”? The court in Smith v. Smith also explained that if the garnishee answers the garnishment before the conditional judgment is entered, even though it is late, a conditional judgment cannot be entered. Because a conditional judgment is an enforcement tool giving the garnishee one last chance to respond, it is no longer necessary if the garnishee does, in fact, respond. So, failing to timely respond to a garnishment is not the end of the world. The garnishment statutes show some grace and allow you to file a late answer to avoid entry of a final judgment. But, do not think you have extra time to respond to a garnishment simply because the conditional judgment is not a final judgment. You should answer the garnishment within 10 business days as required by the garnishment statutes. Failure to do so increases the chance that something will go wrong, and the conditional judgment will become a final judgment making you responsible for your employee’s debt.