JEFFREY SMITH AND FIRST IMPRESSION INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
DANIEL MONES, P.A., RESPONDENT
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.
Florida appellate court quashed an order requiring defendants to provide a prejudgment inventory of assets, holding that creditor's bills cannot reach assets titled in a defendant's individual name absent fraud.
A creditor's bill cannot require a defendant to account for assets titled in the defendant's individual name prior to judgment, and a common law plaintiff has no right to require prejudgment asset disclosure.
[1] A creditor's bill under Florida law can only seek relief against assets not titled in the judgment debtor's individual name, and cannot be used to compel prejudgment disc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter respondent instituted a common law action for damages, he filed a creditor's bill under Florida Statutes Section 68.05, and the trial court cons…
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 Common Law Action For Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After the respondent had instituted a common law action for damages, he instituted a creditor’s bill pursuant to Section 68.05 of the Florida Statutes (1983). The causes were consolidated and the trial court entered the order under review which required the defendants to give an inventory of their assets prior to any judgment being rendered in the common law action. Certiorari of this order has been sought under the authority of Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Accord Manatee County v. Estech General Chemicals Gory., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981); Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. MaKinney, 391 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We hereby quash the order requiring the inventory. There is no right accorded a plaintiff in a common law action to require a defendant to account for his goods and chattels prejudgment and there is no right in a creditor’s bill to seek relief against assets that are titled in the name of an individual defendant. Stewart v. Manget, 132 Fla. 498, 181 So. 370 (1938); George E. Sebring Company v. O’Rourke, 101 Fla. 885, 134 So. 556 (1931); Hollywood Beach Hotel & Golf Club, Inc. v. Gilliland, 140 Fla. 24, 191 So. 30 (1939).
A creditor’s bill can only seek relief against a specific asset which is not in the judgment debtor’s name.' Stewart v. Manget, supra; George E. Sebring Company v. O’Rourke, supra. Of course, any transfer of assets in fraud of creditors is reachable by execution. Riley v. Fatt, 47 So. 2d 769 (Fla.1950); Section 56.29 Florida Statutes (1983).
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the order requiring the inventory is hereby quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allan R. Dunn, M.D. v. Doskocz, 590 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…re is no sound basis on which to correlate the filing of a complaint with the question of post-judgment execution remedies. It is axiomatic that the filing of a complaint does not give the plaintiff a lien on any specific assets. See Smith v. Mones, 459 So. 2d 462, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) ("There is no right accorded a plaintiff in a common law action to require a defendant to account for his goods and chattels prejudgment_”). Quite the contrary: after judgment, the judgment creditor may proceed against such a…
Authorities Cited
- George E. Sebring Co. v. O'Rourke, 134 So. 556 (Fla. 1931)
- Riley v. Fatt, 47 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1950)
- Stewart v. Manget, 132 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1938)
- Hollywood Beach Hotel & Golf Club, Inc. v. Gilliland, 140 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1939)
- The Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. Makinney, 391 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Manatee Cnty. v. Estech Gen. Chems. Corp., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)