CRAIG SIMS, APPELLANT,
v.
WAYNE MEREDITH AND WANDA MEREDITH AND M. PETE MCNABB OF NORTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., GARNISHEE, APPELLEES
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.
Service of a writ of garnishment by a certified process server is permissible and not restricted to sheriffs deputies.
Appellant sought to enforce a judgment by serving writs of garnishment on a third party believed to owe money to the judgment debtors. The writs were …
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
BARFIELD, J.
Appellant, Craig Sims, sought to enforce a judgment against Wayne and Wanda Meredith by serving two writs of garnishment on M. Pete McNabb, who Sims believed owed money to the Merediths. The writs were served by certified process servers. McNabb moved to quash service of process on the grounds that such process must be served by a sheriffs deputy. The trial judge agreed and quashed service of both writs. We reverse.
Section 48.021, Florida Statutes (2003) and (2005), provides all process will be served by a sheriff except for initial non-enforceable civil process. A writ of garnishment brings before the court, for the first time, a garnishee believed to hold money or other property of the judgment debtor. Before any enforcement can be had under chapter 77, Florida Statutes (2005), the debtor is entitled to notice and may assert exemptions, the garnishee is afforded an opportunity to answer, and the judgment creditor must obtain a judgment against the garnishee.
Service of a writ of garnishment is an initial non-enforceable civil process. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
BENTON and THOMAS, JJ, concur.