TORTUGA MARINE SALVAGE CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a fund subject to garnishment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that the appellants' claim of ownership was not timely asserted.
No, the trial court did not err in entering a summary judgment. The appellants' claim of ownership was not timely asserted, and a summary ruling was appropriate given the facts.
“However, the [*55] appellants now allege their ownership to have existed at the time Major E. Threlkeld instituted the litigation.”
Establishes the timing of the appellants' claim of ownership.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMajor E. Threlkeld initiated litigation that resulted in a judgment, creating a fund. Appellants, who now claim ownership of this fund, did not assert…
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 Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
We have considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties and the able arguments of counsel, and conclude that the trial court was eminently correct in entering the summary judgment appealed.
From a reading of the opinions of this court (see, Caballero, Herdegen & Knight v. Threlkeld, 142 So.2d 124 and 155 So.2d 850) it is clear that the litigation creating the fund now claimed by appellants was originated by Major E. Threlkeld, trading as Tortuga Marine Salvage Co., a Florida corporation. Final judgment was entered in favor of Major E. Threlkeld trading as Tortuga Marine Salvage Co., a Florida corporation. No claim that the proceeds of the original judgment belonged to anyone other than Major E. Threlkeld was made until the garnishor in the instant litigation interposed a claim. However, the *55appellants now allege their ownership to have existed at the time Major E. Threlkeld instituted the litigation.
We do not dispute the fact that where a claimant asserts a right to garnished property it is the duty of the court to try the controversy and determine the rights of the parties, and, in Florida, such trial may be had by jury. § 77.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. However, this does not vitiate all other rules applicable to the determination of claims and if the facts of a particular case warrant, a summary ruling on the question of title to the garnished property is appropriate. Here we have such a case.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huckabee v. PIC Investigations Corp., 262 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…reach the funds held by the garnishee is entered, the interests of Mrs. Huckabee in the funds should be conclusively determined and the applicable law applied thereto. Tortuga Marine Salvage Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Fla.App.196S, 171 So. 2d 54. Therefore, the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions for further proceedings consistent with the view herein-above set forth. It is so ordered.…
-
Zelaya/Capital Int'l Judgment, LLC v. Zelaya, 769 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2014)…ght to a jury trial in a garnishment action is not absolute notwithstanding the statute’s use of the word “shall.” A jury trial is not required, for example, if it would serve no purpose. See Tortuga Marine Salvage Co. v. Hartford Ace. & Indem. Co., 171 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1965) (holding that the right to a jury trial in a garnishment action is not absolute where “a summary ruling on the question of title to the garnished property” is warranted); see also SEC v. Mut. Benefits Corp., No. 04-60573-…
-
Gass v. Friedman (In re Martec Corp.) (S.D. Fla. 1994)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caballero v. Major E. Threlkeld, 142 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Caballero v. Major E. Threlkeld, 155 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)