TASO GROUP, LLC
v.
ALAN GOULD
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 trial court may enter a garnishment judgment for the amount of the garnishee's liability on the date the writ is served, but may not include post-judgment interest because § 77.083 contains no provision authorizing such interest and doing so exceeds the court's jurisdictional authority.
[1] A garnishment judgment under Florida Statute § 77.083 is limited to the amount of the garnishee's liability to the principal defendant as of the date the writ of garnishm…
[2] Post-judgment interest may not be included in a garnishment judgment under § 77.083 because the statute contains no provision authorizing such interest, and including it…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“No judgment in excess of the amount remaining unpaid on the final judgment against the defendant or in excess of the amount of the liability of the garnishee to the defendant, whichever is less, shall be entered against the garnishee.”
This statutory provision establishes the ceiling for a garnishment judgment and does not authorize post-judgment interest.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaso Group acquired sixteen check cashing stores and assumed promissory note obligations owed to Check Cashing USA, Inc. Judgment creditors Alan Gould…
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 Post-Judgment Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
FERNANDEZ, C.J.
Defendant Taso Group, LLC (“Taso”) appeals the trial court’s “Final Judgment in Garnishment Against Taso Group, LLC” entered on the trial court’s “Decision and Order On Garnishors’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and Garnishee’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” We affirm the final judgment in part and reverse it in part only as to the post judgment interest portion of the judgment.
The procedural and litigation history of this case is tortured and convoluted. Limiting the background of this case to the parties before this Court, Taso received sixteen retail check cashing/payday lending stores and $6,300,000 in cash receivables from Buckeye Check Cashing of Florida II, LLC (“Buckeye II”) by means of a “Membership Interest Purchase Agreement” (“MIPA”) and an Assignment and Assumption Agreement. Taso assumed the unpaid balance of promissory notes owed by Buckeye II to Check Cashing USA, Inc. (“CCUSA”). Before the transfer to Taso, appellees and plaintiffs below, Alan Gould and Jay Goldman (collectively, “plaintiffs”), sued CCUSA to collect on the promissory notes. At issue in the underlying case and now before this Court is only a $9,000,000 note. In August 2016, plaintiffs obtained a final judgment against CCUSA. After litigation, the trial court found that in the MIPA transaction, Taso leveraged the purchase by assuming Buckeye II’s obligations to CCUSA on 2 the Buckeye II promissory notes. The court found that CCUSA consented to the assignment of Buckeye II’s stores to Taso, as well as Taso’s assumption of debt that Buckeye II still owed CCUSA.
In December 2019, plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Complaint Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors’ Amended Motion for Writ of Garnishment” against Taso. On December 13, 2019, plaintiffs served Taso with a writ of garnishment. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on Taso’s remaining liability on the $9,000,000 note to CCUSA. In turn, Taso filed a motion for summary judgment.
After the requisite hearings, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and denied Taso’s motion for summary judgment. In its “Decision and Order On Garnishors’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and Garnishee’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” the court stated: “[T]he Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the record is undisputed that when the writ of garnishment was served on Taso on December 13, 2019, Taso was indebted to CCUSA in the amount of $2,744,463.57 on the $9 MM Note alone.” As such, the trial court entered its Final Judgment in Garnishment Against Taso Group, LLC and ordered it to pay $2,475,271.21 to plaintiffs. The Final Judgment provides that plaintiffs
5