AIRLITE PROCESSING CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Airlite Processing obtained a judgment against Atlantic Central but was unable to execute it. After a receiver was appointed and sequestered Atlantic Central's contract rights, Atlantic Central paid into the court registry, but the payment excluded execution costs. The trial court discharged the receiver and recorded satisfaction of the judgment, which Airlite refused to accept. The appellate court reversed, holding that execution costs must be included in any payment to satisfy the judgment.
A judgment cannot be satisfied by payment that excludes execution costs. Under Florida Statutes § 55.141(1), satisfaction requires payment of the full judgment amount, interest, plus costs of execution. The trial court erred in recording satisfaction and discharging the receiver without requiring payment of execution costs.
[1] A satisfaction of judgment is improperly recorded when the payment into the court registry fails to include the costs of issuing execution.
[2] A trial court should vacate the satisfaction of judgment and discharge of a receiver when the judgment debtor fails to pay execution costs.
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“All judgments and decrees for the payment of money rendered in the courts of this state and which have become final, may be satisfied at any time prior to the actual levy of execution issued thereon by payment of the full amount of such judgment or decree, with interest thereon, plus costs of the issuance, if any, of execution thereon into the registry of the court where rendered.”
The controlling statute establishing the mandatory requirements for judgment satisfaction, including execution costs.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAirlite obtained a $15,698.28 judgment against Atlantic Central. Execution attempts failed, leading Airlite to file for supplementary proceedings and …
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 Satisfaction Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order discharging the receiver and finding appel-lee had satisfied the judgment below.
Appellant obtained a $15,698.28 judgment against appellee. Attempts to execute on the judgment were unsuccessful. Appellant then filed motions for proceedings supplementary and for impleader of third parties. Motions for sequestration and appointment of a receiver followed. The appointed receiver sequestered appel-lee’s rights and interests in a St. Lucie County School Board construction contract.
Appellee paid $17,205.00 into the registry of the court. The payment did not include appellant’s costs of execution. The Clerk of the Court recorded a satisfaction of judgment. Appellant refused to accept the registry money.
The trial court granted appellee’s motion to discharge the receiver. The trial court denied appellant’s motions to vacate the satisfaction of judgment, to award appellant post-judgment attorney’s and receiver’s fees and costs, and to amend the final judgment.
We reverse. The appellant is entitled to receive the costs incurred in issuing the execution.
Section 55.141(1), Florida Statutes (1987) provides:
All judgments and decrees for the payment of money rendered in the courts of this state and which have become final, may be satisfied at any time prior to the actual levy of execution issued thereon by payment of the full amount of such judgment or decree, with interest thereon, plus costs of the issuance, if any, of execution thereon into the registry of the court where rendered.
Because the amount paid into the registry did not include such costs, the clerk should not have recorded the satisfaction of judgment. On remand the trial court should grant appellant’s motions to vacate the satisfaction of judgment and the discharge of the receiver. Appellant’s claims for post-judgment attorney’s and receiver’s fees and costs until the judgment is fully satisfied should be revisited and the judgment amended to include the appropriate interest, fees and costs.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
HERSEY, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vick v. Vick, 993 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…until undetermined costs, fees and claims for damages pending before the lower court and costs reserved on the face of the March 14, 2003 judgment were determined and paid. We agree. See Airlite Processing Corp. of Fla. v. Atlantic Central Corp., 546 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We also agree that the former wife is entitled to post-judgment attorney’s and receiver’s fees and costs until the judgment is fully satisfied. Id. at 1151; § 57.115, Fla. Stat. (2007); § 57.041, Fla. Stat. (2007); § 59.46, Fla.…