MICHAEL ACRI BOXING PROMOTIONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR G. MILES, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See §§ 77.01, 77.06, Fla. Stat. (1997); see also In re Estate of Woodruff, 647 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Hudgins v. Florida Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 399 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Gelco Corp. v. United Nat’l Bank, 569 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
DELL and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion.
[*705] STONE, J.,
concurring specially.
This and other Florida courts apparently impose a duty on a garnishee-maker of a check that was issued in discharge of an obligation to a judgment debtor to stop payment on the check when served with a writ of garnishment. This obligation arises out of an interpretation of the “possession and control” language in section 77.01, Florida Statutes.
The better policy, in my judgment, absent fraud, is that followed in those states holding that, upon service of a writ of garnishment, a non-bank garnishee does not have a duty to stop payment on checks that have been issued and delivered to discharge a debt. See Russ Togs, Inc. v. Gordon, 127 Ga.App. 520, 194 S.E. 2d 280 (1972); Hart v. O.L. Williams Veneer Co., 287 Ill.App. 89, 4 N.E. 2d 499 (1936); Frickleton v. Fulton, 626 S.W. 2d 402 (Mo.Ct.App.1981); Prewitt v. Brown, 101 Mo. App. 254, 73 S.W. 897 (1903); Central Sec. & Alarm Co. v. Mehler; 125 N.M. 438, 963 P. 2d 515 (Ct.App.1998); Parnell-Martin Supply Co. v. High Point Motor Lodge, Inc., 277 N.C. 312, 177 S.E. 2d 392 (1970); Pearson Grain Co. v. Plains Trucking Co., 494 S.W. 2d 639 (Tex.Civ.App.1973); Brandfass v. Kohn, 113 W.Va. 442, 168 S.E. 476 (1933).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A. v. First Am. Holdings, Inc., 982 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2008)…4081, Fla. Stat. We recognize that arguments have been made that not imposing a duty to stop payment on a non-bank garnishee may be the preferable policy. As Judge Stone expressed in his concurrence in Michael Acri Boxing Promotions, Inc. v. Miles, 758 So. 2d 704, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), “[t]he better policy, in my judgment, absent fraud, is that followed in those states holding that, upon service of a writ of garnishment, a non-bank garnishee does not have a duty to stop payment on checks that have been is…
-
First Am. Holdings, Inc. v. Preclude, Inc., 955 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…Niemackl v. Speedway Festivals, Inc., 7 Kan.App.2d 40, 637 P. 2d 477 (1981), the only case in Florida that addresses this issue suggests that Florida does place such a duty on the nonbank garnishee, see Michael Acri Boxing Promotions, Inc. v. Miles, 758 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Without stating any of the facts or describing the issue, the Fourth District simply affirmed the trial court’s ruling and cited three cases. One of the cases cited is Gelco, 569 So. 2d 502, which deals with a bank garnishee. Ho…
Authorities Cited
- Hudgins v. Fla. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 399 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Gelco Corp. v. United Nat'l Bank, 569 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- In re Est. OF Bonnie Rebecca Woodruff v. Henkels & McCOY, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)