C & S PLUMBING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LIVE SUPPLY, INC., AND FLAGLER NATIONAL BANK OF THE PALM BEACHES, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
C & S Plumbing appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment issued against its bank account. The court held that the writ was issued prematurely because it was issued before the time period for filing a motion for new trial or rehearing had expired.
The writ of garnishment was issued prematurely in violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.550(a), which prohibits issuance of execution or other final process within the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing. The order denying the motion to dissolve is reversed.
[1] A writ of garnishment is a form of final process to enforce a judgment solely for the payment of money.
[2] No execution or other final process shall issue within the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A writ of garnishment is one form of final process to enforce a judgment solely for the payment of money.”
Establishes that garnishment is governed by the rules of final process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 20, 1979, final judgment was entered awarding Live Supply $34,929.35 against C & S Plumbing. On December 26th, Live Supply filed a motion …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously denied its motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. We agree with appellant.
Final judgment awarding appellee Live Supply, Inc. a total recovery of $34,929.35 against appellant was filed on December 20, 1979. On December 26th, Live Supply filed a motion for writ of garnishment; the trial court issued the writ on that date, naming Flagler National Bank of the Palm Beaches as garnishee. After being served on December 28th the garnishee in its answer filed on January 8, 1980, stated that it had accounts of appellant on deposit totalling $3,330.01. On January 11th, Live Supply filed its acceptance of garnishee’s answer and moved for judgment. Appellant, on February 6, then filed a motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment. On February 26th the court denied appellant’s motion to dissolve and entered final judgment against garnishee ordering that Live Supply recover $3,329.921 from the garnishee.
A writ of garnishment is one form of final process to enforce a judgment solely for the payment of money. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.570(a). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.550, entitled Executions and Final Process, provides, inter alia: “(a) ... No execution or other final process shall issue ... within the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing....” (Emphasis added). And Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) states: “Time for motion. A motion for new trial or for rehearing shall be served not later than 10 days after the rendition in a jury action or the entry of judgment in a nonjury action.”
Sub judice the trial court issued the writ of garnishment on December 26th, only six days after the entry of the final judgment on which it was based. The time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing had not expired; therefore, the writ was issued prematurely. Accordingly, the order is reversed and the cause remanded for action consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BERANEK, HERSEY and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur. . The record is silent regarding why the trial court did not order recovery of the entire amount on deposit of $3,330.01, as stated in garnishee’s answer. For obvious reasons the parties have not raised on appeal the nine cents discrepancy.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charter Schs. USA, Inc. v. John DOE NO. 93, 152 So. 3d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…the amount of the supersedeas bond, should Charter School seek such relief. See Freedom Insurors, Inc. v. M.D. Moody & Sons, Inc., 869 So. 2d 1288, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).6 FERNANDEZ, J., CONCURS. . See C & S Plumbing, Inc. v. Live Supply, Inc., 397 So. 2d 998, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) ("A writ of garnishment is one form of final process to enforce a judgment solely for the payment of money. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.570(a).”). . A party is "entitled to rely on the Rules as they read.” Nolan v. Eshleman, 183 So.…
-
SUN Bank/Southwest, N.A. v. Schad, 482 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…to the final judgment has expired, or if such a motion is filed, until it is determined. Appellant relies on Mullins Lumber v. W.W. Lumber & Building Supplies, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and C & S Plumbing, Inc. v. Live Supply, Inc., 397 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). While neither of those cases expressly state whether a writ of garnishment issued prematurely is void or merely voidable, they apparently hold, and appellant seems to argue, that such a premature writ is void. We disagree and be…
-
Mullins Lumber Co. v. W.W. Lumber & Bldg. Supplies, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…BERANEK, Judge. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. We agree based on C & S Plumbing, Inc. v. Live Supply, Inc., 397 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). A stipulated judgment awarding W.W. Lumber $26,823.52 was filed on February 2, 1981. On February 5, 1981, W.W. Lumber filed a motion for writ of garnishment naming Mullins Lumber as garnishee. The writ was issued the same day…1 / 3