CARWIN BLEIDT, LIMITED GAMING OF AMERICA, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT LOBATO, 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.
The court held that a returned and unsatisfied writ of execution is not a jurisdictional prerequisite for supplementary post-judgment proceedings under section 56.29, Florida Statutes.
This case involved supplementary post-judgment proceedings. The appellants argued that a returned and unsatisfied writ of execution was required for t…
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 Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The final judgment in these proceedings supplementary is affirmed. We consider this case en banc in order to recede from Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 450 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), overruled on other grounds, Exceletech, Inc. v. Williams, 579 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), affirmed, 597 So. 2d 275 (Fla.1992). In Wieczoreck, this court ruled that under section 56.29, Florida Statutes, a jurisdictional prerequisite for supplementary post-judgment proceedings is a returned and unsatisfied writ of execution. As authority for this pronouncement, the court relied on Tomayko v. Thomas, 143 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Tomayko, however, was decided before section 56.29 was amended in 1967. The amended version of the statute eliminates the requirement that the writ of execution be returned unsatisfied so that the judgment creditor need only have a writ of execution which remains unsatisfied. See Standard Property Investment Trust v. Luskin, 585 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accord, Trawick, Florida Practice & Procedure § 27-9; 2 Rakusin, Florida Creditors’ Rights Manual, Ch. 8, p. 9 (D & S 1993). We recede from our erroneous pronouncement in Wieczoreck.
Accordingly, we reject the appellants’ claim that return of an unsatisfied writ of execution is a jurisdictional prerequisite to proceedings supplementary.
We have considered the remaining points raised and find no reversible error. AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, W. SHARP, GOSHORN, HARRIS, GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . We likewise recede from Timothy Dunn Associates v. Seligman, 557 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) and Nestor v. Dependable Insurance Company, Inc., 552 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) to the extent they are based upon the erroneous language contained in Wieczoreck.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lobato-Bleidt v. Lobato, 688 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…is Colorado judgment. The evidence clearly supports this conclusion^ See Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 450 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), certified question answered, 475 So. 2d 227 (Fla.1985), receded from on other grounds, Bleidt v. Lobato, 664 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Finally, the Bleidts complain that the order below contains findings which misstate the evidence and grants relief beyond Robert’s pleadings. In his amended supplemental petition, Robert asked the court to invalidate the shareh…
Authorities Cited
- Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 450 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Tomayko v. Thomas, 143 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Exceletech, Inc. v. S.W. Williams, 579 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Exceletech, Inc. v. S.W. Williams, 597 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1992)
- Timothy Dunn Assocs., Inc. v. Seligman, 557 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Standard Prop. Inv. Tr., Inc. v. Luskin, 585 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Nestor v. Dependable Ins. Co., Inc., 552 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)