AMERICAN SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF TAMPA, INC.
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 denied the motion for a writ of garnishment because the garnishee bank was located outside the court's jurisdictional boundaries.
Plaintiff sought a writ of garnishment against Truist Bank to collect a judgment against Yellow Cab Company. The proposed writ listed the bank's addre…
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 came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Garnishment Against Truist Bank (“Motion”) (Doc. 30). This matter arises from Plaintiff’s efforts to collect on its Amended Judgment (Doc. 29) entered against Defendant Yellow Cab Company of Tampa, Inc., totaling $180,000 plus post judgment interest at a rate of 6.03% per annum. Plaintiff seeks a writ of garnishment against Truist Bank, 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 did 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-ORLexecution); Lapinski v. St. Croix Condo. Ass’n., Inc., No. 6:16-cv-1418-Orl-40GJK, 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 Truist Bank, the garnishee. In Plaintiff’s proposed writ, Plaintiff lists Truist Bank’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.1 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 Truist Bank (Doc. 30) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ANTHONY E. PORCELLI
United Sfates Magistrate Judge
cc: Counsel of Record