FIRST FLORIDA BANK, N.A., APPELLANT,
v.
R.D.P. OF NAPLES, INC., B.P.'S OF NAPLES, INC., PODLEY ENTERPRISES, INC., AND DAVID HAYES AKA DAVID J. HAYES, 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.
First Florida Bank appeals a nonfinal order requiring it to replace funds it had paid pursuant to a final judgment in garnishment. The court held that a garnishee's payment of a facially valid garnishment judgment absolves it from further liability, and reversed the trial court's order requiring replacement of the funds.
A garnishee's payment of a judgment in garnishment that is facially valid and entered by a court of competent jurisdiction absolves the garnishee from further liability, and the garnishee cannot be compelled to replace the funds even if the judgment is subsequently set aside.
[1] A garnishee is absolved from further liability upon payment of a garnishment judgment that is facially valid and entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
[2] A garnishee's payment of a garnishment judgment, even if later set aside, discharges the garnishee's liability if the judgment was facially valid and issued by a court wi…
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“the payment, by a garnishee, of a judgment in garnishment entered against it, which is facially valid and entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, absolves the garnishee from further liability”
States the controlling legal principle that protects garnishees who pay valid garnishment judgments
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePodley entities obtained a $77,524.80 final judgment against Naples Food Service and David Hayes. A writ of garnishment was served on First Florida Ba…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540 cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
First Florida Bank, N.A. (First Florida) appeals a nonfinal order of the trial court requiring it to “immediately replace” funds paid from certain bank accounts pursuant to a final judgment in garnishment. We reverse.
R.D.P. of Naples, Inc., B.P.’s of Naples, Inc., and Podley Enterprises, Inc., hereafter referred to collectively as “Podley,” sued Naples Food Service, Inc., and David J. Hayes (Hayes) and obtained a final judgment in the amount of $77,524.80 on March 13, 1990.
Podley caused a writ of garnishment to be served on First Florida, as garnishee, on March 30, 1990. First Florida served its answer on April 13, 1990, stating that Hayes had or appeared to have an ownership interest in two accounts totaling $6,798.48. On April 24, 1990, the trial court entered a final judgment in garnishment against First Florida in that amount and in favor of Podley.
On May 4, 1990, Hayes served a motion for relief from garnishment, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, asserting that the judgment in garnishment had been prematurely entered prior to the expiration of his time to respond to the original writ. Hayes did not seek to stay execution of the judgment, and on May 16, 1990, First Florida satisfied the judgment with the funds in which Hayes purportedly held an interest.
On June 8, 1990, Hayes filed a “Motion To Compel,” requesting the trial court to order First Florida to replace the funds in the accounts, together with a notice of hearing on the motion for June 12, 1990. On June 11, 1990, the trial court entered an order setting aside the judgment in garnishment and dissolving the writ. On June 13, 1990, the trial court entered an order granting the motion to compel, which order is the subject of this interlocutory appeal.
Without belaboring the succession of irregularities which transpired in the trial court, we hold that the payment, by a garnishee, of a judgment in garnishment entered against it, which is facially valid and entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, absolves the garnishee from further liability. See Slaughter v. Winston, 347 F.Supp. 1221 (E.D.Va.1972), aff'd, 476 F. 2d 972 (4th Cir.1973); Murphy v. Merchants Nat’l Bank, 240 Ala. 688, 200 So. 894 (1941); McDonald v. Case, 194 Ark. 1093, 110 S.W. 2d 39 (1937); Upper Blue Bench Irrigation Dist. v. Continental Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 93 Utah 325, 72 P. 2d 1048 (1937).
Reversed.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PARKER,' J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tonnie Torrell Holmes v. State, 575 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…DCA 1990), jurisdiction accepted, 568 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1990). The First and the Second District Courts of Appeal have ruled contrary to Davis and have certified the matter.1 . Stenson v. State, 573 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); James v. State, 573 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Robinson v. State, 572 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Gillette v. State, 571 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Robinson v. State, 571 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); White v. State…
-
Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A. v. Am. Med. Express Corp., 671 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5)1 because the underlying debt owed by the garnishee to the plaintiff-garnishor’s judgment debtor had been fully satisfied. See § 77.083, Fla.Stat. (1995); First Florida Bank, N.A v. R.D.P. of Naples, Inc., 573 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA [*820] 1991); Carpenter v. Benson, 478 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1986); United Presidential Life Ins. Co. v. King, 361 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1978). See generally Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 629 S…
-
State v. James, 581 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1991)…PER CURIAM. The state of Florida seeks review of James v. State, 573 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), in which the district court affirmed James’ conviction and sentence for sale of cocaine, but vacated James’ conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine on the authority of V.A.A. v. State, 561 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990),…
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
- In re Slaughter v. Winston, 476 F.2d 972 (4th Cir. 1973)