BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A., APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN MEDICAL EXPRESS CORP., 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.
Trial court properly vacated a garnishment judgment because the underlying debt owed by the garnishee to the judgment debtor had been fully satisfied.
A garnishment judgment must be vacated under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) when the underlying debt owed by the garnishee to the judgment debtor has been fully satisfied.
[1] A garnishment judgment is subject to vacation under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) when the underlying debt owed by the garnishee to the judgment debtor has…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnett Bank obtained a garnishment judgment against American Medical Express Corp. as garnishee for a debt owed to Barnett Bank's judgment debtor, bu…
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 Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We hold that the trial court properly vacated a garnishment judgment under 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 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 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Weitzman v. F.I.F.. Consultants, Inc., 468 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 479 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1985). On the cross-appeal, we likewise find no error. Affirmed.
. RULE 1.540 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, DECREES, OR ORDERS
* * * * * *
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
* * * * * *
(5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cunha v. Cunha, 92 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…lorida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment where “the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(5); Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A. v. Am. Med. Express Corp., 671 So. 2d 819, 819 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have previously explained that an agreement between parties “to satisfy [a] debt for less than the amount due and its payment can amount to a satisfaction of the debt.” Berman v. U.S. Fin. Acceptance Corp., 669 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- United Presidential Life Ins. Co. v. Macon M. King, 361 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1978)
- Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 629 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Weitzman v. F.I.F. Consultants, Inc., 468 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Carpenter v. Benson, 478 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Williams v. State, 478 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- James v. State, 573 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- First Fla. Bank, N.A. v. R.D.P. OF Naples, Inc., 573 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)