JULIA BISHARAT ELLIS, APPELLANT,
v.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC-MIAMI AGENCY, 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.
A judgment creditor appealed the discharge of a garnishee bank that claimed it had no funds belonging to the judgment debtor in its U.S. offices and could not reach foreign branch accounts due to banking confidentiality laws. The court affirmed the discharge but reversed the denial of attorney's fees to the garnishee.
The court affirmed that a U.S. court's garnishment process cannot reach deposits held in foreign branches of an international bank, and the garnishee was properly discharged. However, the court reversed the denial of attorney's fees and remanded for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Florida Statute Section 77.28.
[1] A writ of garnishment served on a United States branch of an international bank cannot reach deposits held in foreign branches of that bank.
[2] A garnishee bank is entitled to discharge from liability after accounting for all accounts within its United States branches, even if the debtor may hold accounts in fore…
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“the process of a United States court served on a United States branch of an international bank cannot reach deposits possibly held in foreign branches”
Establishes the core legal principle that garnishment jurisdiction is territorially limited to accounts within the court's jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulia Bisharat Ellis served a writ of garnishment on Barclays Bank's Miami office to collect a $277,000 judgment against her former husband, Samuel La…
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 Writ Of Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
The plaintiff appeals the order granting final summary judgment discharging the garnishee, Barclays Bank.
The defendant/garnishee cross appeals the denial of attorney fees.
The appellant served a writ of garnishment on Barclays Bank at its Miami office attempting to collect a judgment against her former husband for $277,-000.00. Barclays Bank answered the writ by accounting for all accounts in the United States, and it stated it did not have possession or control of any monies payable to Samuel Laird Ellis, the former husband. By reply, the appellant traversed the bank’s denial of debt due to failure to account for its Caribbean branches, especially the branch in Antigua.
Barclays Bank in Miami filed a motion for summary judgment arguing it should be discharged from further liability after having accounted for all accounts held by Mr. Ellis in Florida and elsewhere in the United States. It further argued that the process of a United States court served on a United States branch of an international bank cannot reach deposits possibly held in foreign branches. Additionally it asserted the Antiguan banking confidentiality laws (claiming that an Antiguan bank branch, as any branch in a foreign country) would object to a request for information about the account holders from a branch m any other country.
Barclays motion for summary judgment was granted and the trial court entered an order discharging it from further liability under the writ of garnishment.
We affirm as to the order of discharge questioned on the main appeal, State ex rel. Florida Bank & Trust Co. v. White, 155 Fla. 591, 21 So. 2d 213 (1944); Tueta v. Rodriguez, 176 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Payton v. Swanson, 175 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Shinto Shipping Co. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., 425 F.Supp. 1088 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd, 572 F. 2d 1328 (9th Cir.1978); Clinton Trust Co. v. Compania Azucarera Central Mabay, S.A., 172 Misc. 148, 14 N.Y.S.2d 743 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1939), aff'd, 258 A.D. 780, 15 N.Y.S.2d 721 (1939); Bluebird Undergarment Corp. v. Gomez, 139 Misc. 742, 249 N.Y.S. 319 (N.Y.Ct.1931), but we reverse on the cross appeal as to the denial of attorney’s fees. See and compare First National Bank & Trust Company of Stuart v. Bryan, 427 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Florida National Bank of Coral Gables v. Rosen, 353 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Buyer Finance Corporation v. Oliveros, 196 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
This cause is remanded with directions to award attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1991).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Power Rental OP CO, LLC v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth. (M.D. Fla. 2021)…rily at the statutory language.”). The earliest identified case on the applicability of the Florida garnishment statute to funds held in bank accounts outside the territorial limits of Florida is Ellis v. Barclays Bank PLC-Miami Agency. 594 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In Ellis, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal ruled that a post-judgment writ of garnishment served on the U.S. branch of an international bank could not reach a judgment debtor’s deposits held in foreig…
-
CodeVentures, LLC v. Vital Motion Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2021)…retary of Vital, the three Bank of America accounts were never opened or maintained in Florida. (D.E. 125-1 6). Codeventures does not attempt to address or distinguish Skulas; instead, it refers the Court to Ellis v. Barclays Bank PLC-Miami Agency, 594 So. 2d 826, 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), but, as the court noted in Skulas, 2010 WL 1790439, at *2, Ellis involved a different issue. Ellis involved a plaintiff that served a writ of garnishment on Barclays Bank, the garnishee, and it “answered the writ by accounti…
Authorities Cited
- Shinto Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., Inc., 572 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1978)
- First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Stuart v. Bryan, 427 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Buyer Fin. Corp. v. Oliveros, 196 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- THE City OF Leesburg v. Certain Lands upon which Taxes or Special Assessments, 155 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1945)
- State v. JOS. S. White, 155 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1944)
- Victor Tueta & the Marine Bank & Tr. Co. of Tampa v. Rodriguez, 176 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Payton v. Swanson, 175 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Carmelo Fernandez v. State, 353 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)