COBELENS
v.
NEWCO LLC
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.
The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of garnishment against a garnishee located outside its jurisdictional boundaries.
Plaintiff sought a writ of garnishment against Bank of America to satisfy a judgment. The proposed writ listed the bank's registered agent's address i…
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 Jurisdiction Over Property cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Garnishment after Judgement (“Motion”). (Doc. 19). This matter arises from Plaintiff’s efforts to collect on her judgment entered against Defendant Newco LLC d/b/a Buddy’s Home Furnishings, in the amount of $14,540.66, plus post judgment interest. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff seeks a writ of garnishment against Bank of America, N.A., who Plaintiff believes is in possession of money that may be used to satisfy the judgment. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff does not address whether this Court has jurisdiction to issue the writ. A writ of garnishment will only be enforceable within the bounds of the federal district in which it was issued. See JPI Partners, LLC v. Dixon, No. 6:07-MC-77-ORL- 22DAB, 2008 WL 2185744, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (considering a writ of 2019 WL 1491568, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2019) (denying Motion for Writ of Garnishment because the garnishee was located in the Southern District of Florida and thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ). In issuing a writ of garnishment, the court must not only have personal jurisdiction over the garnishee, but it also must have jurisdiction over the property to be garnished. Lapinski, 2019 WL 1491568 at *1 (citing Skulas v. Loiselle, No. 09-60096-CIV, 2010 WL 1790439, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2010)). Here, Plaintiff moves this Court to issue a writ of garnishment directed towards Bank of America, N.A., the garnishee. In Plaintiff’s proposed writ, Plaintiff lists Bank of America N.A.’s registered agent’s address as 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, Florida 33324. However, this address is not located in the Middle District of Florida but rather, is in the Southern District of Florida.
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to assert that Defendant has an account in a bank branch within the Middle District of Florida. Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this Court has jurisdiction to issue the writ to a garnishee located outside this Court’s jurisdictional boundaries. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Garnishment against Bank of America, N.A., (Doc. 19) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this Ist day of November, 2021.
ANTHON E. PORCELLI
United Sfates Magistrate Judge cc: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buesking v. Aloschi Bros. SRL. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…e attached funds are located outside of Florida. (See Mot. 7–8; Reply 6–7 (citing Power Rental Op Co, LLC v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., No. 20-cv-1015, 2021 WL 9881137, at *1–9 (M.D. Fla. July 6, 2021); Skulas v. Loiselle, No. 09-60096-Civ, 2010 WL 1790439, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. 09-60096-Civ, 2010 WL 1790433 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2010))). In ---PAGE 8--- Power Rental, a court concluded the Florida garnishment statute “does not apply extraterritorially to o…1 / 4
-
Birmingham v. Rofx.net (S.D. Fla. 2024)…Civil Procedure 69(a)(1), garnishment proceedings must follow the law of the state where the Court is located. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). “Florida law requires garnishment statutes to be strictly construed.” Skulas v. Loiselle, No. 09-60096- CIV, 2010 WL 1790439, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. 09-60096-CIV, 2010 WL 1790433 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2010) (citing Gigliotti Cont. N., Inc. v. Traffic Control Products of N. Fla, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). “[…1 / 3