NAVON, KOPELMAN & O'DONNELL, P.A., PETITIONER,
v.
SYNNEX INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RESPONDENT
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 law firm seeks certiorari review of orders denying its motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment on the ground of lack of standing. The court holds that the firm lacked standing because it was not specifically identified in the garnishee's answer and failed to follow the proper statutory procedure for asserting an ownership interest in garnished funds.
The law firm lacked standing to move to dissolve the writ because the statutes grant such standing only to the defendant and other persons having an ownership interest in the property as disclosed by the garnishee's answer. The firm's identity was not sufficiently disclosed in the garnishee's answer, and the firm failed to follow the proper procedure under section 77.16 to assert its claimed ownership interest.
[1] A garnishee's answer must disclose whether the garnishee has property of the defendant under control or knows of any other person indebted to the defendant.
[2] The statutory right to move to dissolve a writ of garnishment is granted only to the defendant and any other person with an ownership interest in the property, as disclos…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 statutory right to move to dissolve the writ is granted only to the defendant and any other person having an ownership interest in the property, as disclosed by the garnishee's answer.”
Establishes the core legal principle limiting standing to dissolve a garnishment writ to identified defendants and persons specifically disclosed in the garnishee's answer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA writ of garnishment was issued against SYNNEX Information Technologies, Inc., which held settlement funds it had agreed to pay to the judgment debto…
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 Motion To Dissolve Writ Of Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This petition for certiorari seeks review of a circuit court order which affirmed a county court order denying, for lack of standing, petitioner’s motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. We deny the petition.
The garnishee, in answer to the writ, admitted that as the defendant in a lawsuit filed by the judgment debtor it was holding the funds it had agreed to pay in settlement. The answer further stated, however, that the garnishee was in doubt as to whether it was holding funds belonging to the judgment debtor because the latter not only was disputing the settlement terms but also was moving to substitute an unnamed party in its place as plaintiff. The answer did not disclose petitioner by name nor otherwise identify anyone else with an ownership interest in the property.
Subsequent to service of garnishee’s answer, petitioner obtained an order in the underlying county court action allowing it to be substituted as plaintiff in place of the judgment debtor. Petitioner then filed in the garnishment its motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment, which the court denied on the basis of petitioner’s lack of standing.
Upon service of a writ of garnishment, the garnishee must serve an answer which, pertinent to the present case, must indicate whether the garnishee has property of the defendant under his or her control, or knows of any other person indebted to the defendant. See § 77.04, Fla.Stat. (1997). Once that information is received the gar-nishor must send notice to those persons disclosed in the garnishee’s answer informing them of the garnishment and advising them of their right to move to dissolve the writ. § 77.055. The statutory right to move to dissolve the writ is granted only to the defendant and any other person having an ownership interest in the property, as disclosed by the garnishee’s answer. § 77.07(2). The statutes contemplate that other persons who claim an ownership interest in the debt due by the garnishee, or in property in the hands or possession of the garnishee, may assert such claim by filing an affidavit under the provisions of section 77.16.
Petitioner contends that even though its identity was not disclosed specifically in the garnishee’s answer, its identity was disclosed sufficiently to meet the requirements of § 77.07(2) because the answer indicated the existence of an unidentified third party who might be substituted for the judgment debtor as party plaintiff. The circuit court, in affirming the county court’s denial of the motion to dissolve the writ, did not violate a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995). Petitioner could have made a claim under the procedure of § 77.16 but did not.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Villamorey, S.A. v. Bdt Invs., Inc., 245 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…ship interest in the Villamorey account at Bank, Villamorey was not required to file an affidavit before exercising its section 77.07(2) right to move to dissolve the writ. See Navon, Kopelman & O’Donnell, P.A. v. Synnex Informacion Techs. Inc., 720 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“The statutory right to move to dissolve the writ is granted only to the defendant and any other person having an ownership interest in the property, as disclosed by the garnishee’s answer. § 77.07(2). The statutes con…
-
Rudd v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 761 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…atutory right to move to dissolve the writ is granted only to the defendant and any other person having an ownership interest in the property, as disclosed by the garnishee’s answer. See Navon, Kopelman & O’Donnell, P.A. v. Synnex Info. Tech., Inc., 720 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); § 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The defendant shall file and serve a motion to dissolve the garnishment within 20 days after the date indicated in the certificate of service on the defendant. See § 77.07(2), Fla. Stat. (199…
-
Alejandre v. Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto RICO, Inc., 183 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 1999)…77.07(2) ] is granted only to the defendant [ — i.e., the judgment debtor — ] and any other person having an ownership interest in the property, as disclosed by the garnishee’s answer." Navon, Kopelman & O’Donnell, P.A. v. Synnex Info. Techs., Inc., 720 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (emphasis added and original emphasis omitted). Some of the carriers’ answers did claim a right to set off certain expenses against their debts to ETECSA, but it is unlikely that this claim could give the carriers standing…
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)