BARNETT BANK OF BROWARD COUNTY, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JAY TABATCHNICK AND MARILYN TABATCHNICK, HIS WIFE, AND BRUCE TABATCHNICK AND MERYL TABATCHNICK, HIS WIFE, AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOLLYWOOD, A BANKING CORPORATION, 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.
Barnett Bank appealed the denial of its motion for judgment in garnishment against First National Bank of Hollywood, which had asserted a setoff against garnished assets. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order denying the garnishment motion was neither a final nor appealable non-final order.
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the order denying the motion for judgment in garnishment because the order is neither a final appealable order nor an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110, 9.130(a)(3), or 9.130(a)(4).
[1] An order denying a judgment creditor's motion for judgment in garnishment is not a final appealable order.
[2] An order denying a judgment creditor's motion for judgment in garnishment is not an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) or (4…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Garnishment, while ancillary in nature, is nonetheless a separate and distinct proceeding which in its present statutory form, requires service of writ and permits service of an answer by the garnishee, a reply by the plaintiff, a motion to dissolve by the defendant, and affidavits on behalf of any third person claiming the garnished property.”
Establishes that garnishment is a distinct proceeding with its own procedural requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnett Bank, as a judgment creditor, caused a writ of garnishment to be issued and served on First National Bank of Hollywood. The garnishee bank ans…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge.
The substantive appellate issue presented is whether the court erred in denying a judgment creditor’s motion for judgment in garnishment against the garnishee bank, appellee herein. We are unable to reach this question because of lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant, a judgment creditor, caused writ of garnishment to be issued and served upon appellee, the garnishee, whose answer to the writ disclosed that it held certain assets of the defendants but against which it claimed a setoff in excess of the value of the property held by it. Appellant filed no reply to the garnishee’s answer, but instead filed a motion for judgment in garnishment. After a hearing on that motion the court entered the order herein sought to be reviewed which simply stated that the garnishor’s motion for judgment in garnishment “. . . be, and the same is hereby denied.”
While this appeal was pending, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We elected to defer ruling on the motion, requesting that counsel address that issue at the time of presenting oral argument on the merits. We have concluded that we do not have appellate jurisdiction and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Garnishment, while ancillary in nature, is nonetheless a separate and distinct proceeding which in its present statutory form, requires service of writ and permits service of an answer by the garnishee, a reply by the plaintiff, a motion to dissolve by the defendant, and affidavits on behalf of any third person claiming the garnished property. Each has certain definite procedural consequences, some provide for a trial or hearing in one form or another, and all contemplate ultimate entry of final judgment which terminates the writ, either by discharging the garnishee from further liability under the writ or by awarding judgment in favor of the judgment creditor against the garnishee.
The order under review here is neither a final appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110, nor an appealable non-final order under Rule 9.130(a)(3) or (4). Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach v. Cloverleaf Hospital, Inc., 194 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The court simply lacks jurisdiction. Atria v. Anton, 379 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Dismissed.
DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…are individually appealable under 9.130(a)(4). See also, Sverdahl v. Farmers and Merchants Savings Bank, 582 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Peterson v. Peterson, 429 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and Barnett Bank of Broward County v. Tabatchnick, 401 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Where an order entered after final judgment is merely prefatory to another order which will be appealable either as a final judgment or an order on an authorized motion under rule 9.130(a)(4), review of the correctness of the p…
-
GACHÉ v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 625 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…son are Sverdahl v. Farmers and Merchants Savings Bank, 582 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (appeal from order impleading third party in supplementary proceedings dismissed for lack of jurisdiction), and Barnett Bank of Broward County v. Tabatchnick, 401 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (appeal from order denying motion in post-judgment garnishment proceeding dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). The order entered here, pursuant to section 620.695(1), is not final. It merely initiates “a flexible court-supervise…
-
The Second Shift, Inc. v. Great W. Life & Annuity Ins. Corp., 797 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…t a “final judgment which terminates the writ, either by discharging the garnishee from further liability under the writ or by awarding judgment in favor of the judgment creditor against the garnishee.” Barnett Bank of Broward County v. Tabatchnick, 401 So. 2d 1166, 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It is a nonfinal order over which we lack jurisdiction. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. DISMISSED. POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Atria v. Anton, 379 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Jefferson Nat'l Bank OF Miami Beach v. Cloverleaf Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)