ABELARDO ESTRADA, APPELLANT,
v.
SORRENTO TOWNHOMES, LLC A/K/A SORRENTO CORPORATION, AND SPEAR SORRENTO CORPORATION, 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.
Estrada obtained a final summary judgment against Sorrento entities and sought to commence proceedings supplementary to reach the corporate owners' distributions. The trial court denied his motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Estrada satisfied all statutory prerequisites for supplementary proceedings.
A judgment creditor is entitled to commence proceedings supplementary upon establishing the four statutory requirements: (1) holder of an unsatisfied judgment; (2) identification of the issuing court and case number; (3) statement of the unsatisfied judgment amount; and (4) confirmation that execution is valid and outstanding. No preliminary evidentiary hearing is required before authorization.
[1] A party is entitled to proceedings supplementary upon establishing they are the holder of an unsatisfied judgment, identifying the issuing court and case number, stating…
[2] A motion for proceedings supplementary is legally sufficient when accompanied by an affidavit and attachments that satisfy all statutory prerequisites.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a party is entitled to proceedings supplementary if the party: (1) establishes that the party is the holder of an unsatisfied judgment; (2) identifies the issuing court and case number; (3) states the unsatisfied amount of the judgment; and (4) confirms that execution is valid and outstanding”
Establishes the four-part test for entitlement to supplementary proceedings under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEstrada obtained a final summary judgment of $44,298.31 against Sorrento Townhomes, LLC and Spear Sorrento Corporation. He then filed a motion to comm…
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 Execution Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Abelardo Estrada appeals an order denying his motion to commence proceedings supplementary. Because Estrada’s motion was sufficient to entitle him to the proceedings, we reverse the order on appeal.
In this case, Estrada obtained a final summary judgment in the amount of $44,298.31 against Sorrento Townhomes, LLC, a/k/a Sorrento Corporation, and Spear Sorrento Corporation (collectively, “the corporate defendants”). Later, he filed a motion to commence proceedings supplementary and to implead the owners of the corporate defendants who, he al*676leged, made distributions to themselves from the corporate assets in order to hinder execution of the judgment. Estrada alleged he was the holder of the summary final judgment, and that the judgment was valid, outstanding, and unsatisfied. A copy of the judgment, which identified the originating court, case number, and amount of the judgment, was attached to the motion. The motion was supported by an affidavit, deposition excerpts, and records of the corporate defendants reflecting the date, amounts, and recipients of transfers.
Under Florida law, a party is entitled to proceedings supplementary if the party: (1) establishes that the party is the holder of an unsatisfied judgment; (2) identifies the issuing court and case number; (3) states the unsatisfied amount of the judgment; and (4) confirms that execution is valid and outstanding. § 56.29(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); see also B & I Contractors, Inc. v. Mel Re Constr. Mgmt., 66 So.3d 1035,1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Okaloosa New Opportunity, LLC v. LD Projects, LLC, 109 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Here, the affidavit and attachments to the motion satisfied all of the prerequisites for commencement of the proceedings supplementary. We reject the argument of the corporate defendants that the court must appoint a magistrate to conduct, in the county of residence of the parties to be impleaded, a preliminary evidentiary hearing on the merits of the movant’s claim before it authorizes the commencement of the proceedings supplementary. Such a procedure is as unworkable as it is unsupported by law. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Keefe Wesley v. State, 66 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- B & I Contractors, Inc. v. MEL RE Constr. Mgmt., 66 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Okaloosa NEW Opportunity, LLC v. LD Projects, LLC, 109 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)