RAY PAYTON, APPELLANT,
v.
A. C. SWANSON, APPELLEE
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 non-resident defendant challenged a Florida court's quasi in rem jurisdiction over his bank account through garnishment by a non-resident plaintiff. The court held that Florida law permits non-resident plaintiffs to use garnishment to establish quasi in rem jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant's property within the state, and affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss.
A non-resident plaintiff may maintain a quasi in rem action through garnishment against a non-resident defendant's property located in Florida. Personal service on the non-resident principal defendant is not required to establish quasi in rem jurisdiction over property within the state, and Florida law prescribes no residency limitation for plaintiffs seeking garnishment.
“Clearly, personal service of process on a non-resident principal defendant is not required to gain quasi in rem jurisdiction over his property within this state by way of garnishment.”
Establishes the core holding that quasi in rem jurisdiction via garnishment does not require personal service on the defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff-appellee, a non-resident of Florida, filed a complaint against Ray Payton, a non-resident defendant, and garnished Payton's bank account at …
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 Action Ex Contractu cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-defendant prosecutes this interlocutory appeal from an order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff-appellee, a non-resident of Florida, filed a complaint styled “Complaint In Action Ex Contractu”, joining appellant Ray Payton, a non-resident, as principal defendant and the Five Points ’National Bank of Miami, as garnishee. Plaintiff then served the bank with a Writ of Garnishment. The suit was quasi in rem, as plaintiff sought to garnish a bank account *49of defendant Payton in garnishee bank. Mr. Payton, who was not personally served, made a special appearance by which he sought to dismiss the cause and dissolve the writ of garnishment on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Clearly, personal service of process on a non-resident principal defendant is not required to gain quasi in rem jurisdiction over his property within this state by way of garnishment.1
It is appellant’s contention that by virtue of the language of Pennoyer v. Neff,2 as quoted in the Harris & Co. Advertising, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba case,3 a quasi in rem action is not available to a non-resident plaintiff against a non-resident principal defendant.
Even if a proper construction of the dictum of Pennoyer is as appellant contends, a contrary result has been reached in numerous cases decided subsequent to Pennoyer.4
We perceive the majority view to be as follows:
“There can be no doubt that a nonresident may maintain an ordinary action upon a money demand * * * without regard to the place where the cause of action arose; and, as an attachment is nothing more than a remedy in aid of an ordinary action, we see no reason why such non-resident may not invoke such remedy just as well as a citizen of this state, unless there is something in the provisions óf our attachment law which confine the benefits afforded by it to citizens or residents of this state.” 5
Florida prescribes no limitation regarding residency of a plaintiff to avail himself of garnishment procedure.6 We do not feci that due process requires us to judicially engraft upon the statute such a limitation.
The order appealed is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis v. Barclays Bank Plc-Miami Agency, 594 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…rit of garnishment. We affirm as to the order of discharge questioned on the main appeal, State ex rel. Florida Bank & Trust Co. v. White, 155 Fla. 591, 21 So. 2d 213 (1944); Tueta v. Rodriguez, 176 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Payton v. Swanson, 175 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Shinto Shipping Co. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., 425 F.Supp. 1088 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd, 572 F. 2d 1328 (9th Cir.1978); Clinton Trust Co. v. Compania Azucarera Central Mabay, S.A., 172 Misc. 148, 14 N.Y.S.2d 743 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1939),…
-
TJ Mgmt. Grp., L.L.C. v. Ehud Zidon, 990 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…wn orders. See Hale v. Miracle Enters., 517 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“[a] trial court necessarily retains jurisdiction to modify an injunctive order whenever changed circumstances make it equitable to do so.”); see also Payton v. Swanson, 175 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (holding that personal service not required [*626] to establish quasi in rem jurisdiction over property by way of garnishment).1 TJ Management now argues that the trial court’s Order Denying the Motion to Dissolve should be rever…
-
Domaire v. Conner, 238 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Harris & Company Advertising, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 687; Payton v. Swanson, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 48.…
Authorities Cited
- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (U.S. 1877)
- Harris & Co. Advertising, Inc. v. Republic OF Cuba, 127 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)