E. B. LEATHERMAN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GUS GIMOURGINAS, U. S. 1-163RD STREET CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND N. M. B. LIQUORS, INC., A FLORIDA 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal held that funds deposited in a circuit court's registry in a chancery proceeding are not subject to garnishment by a judgment creditor in a separate civil court proceeding. The court reversed the trial court's garnishment judgment against the clerk of the circuit court.
Funds in custodia legis (in the custody of the law) are not garnishable. The court reversed the garnishment judgment, holding that a trial court other than the one whose registry holds the funds cannot direct their disposition through garnishment, and the clerk's proper course was to obey the original circuit court's order to disburse the funds.
“As a general proposition, funds in custodia legis are not garnishable.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that defeats the garnishment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceU.S. 1-163rd Street Corp. deposited funds in the registry of the Circuit Court during a chancery proceeding. After a final decree, the chancellor orde…
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 Custodia Legis cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal we are called upon to determine whether funds, on deposit in the registry of the circuit court, are subject to a writ of garnishment issued from the Civil Court of Record.
The record on appeal reveals the following: That in a chancery proceeding lately pending in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, a party therein [U.S. 1-163rd Street Corp.] deposited certain funds in the registry of the court. Subsequent to a final decree in this chancery matter, the chancellor entered an order directing the clerk of the’ circuit court to return *302these funds in the registry of the court to U.S. l-163rd Street Corp.1 Before the funds could be disbursed, the clerk of the circuit court was served with a writ of garnishment issued out of the civil court of record to aid a judgment creditor in collecting a judgment in said court rendered against U.S. l-163rd Street Corp. Subsequent to appropriate pleadings filed by the clerk of the circuit court in the garnishment proceedings, the trial judge entered a final judgment in garnishment against the clerk of the circuit court, and this appeal ensued. We find error and reverse.
As a general proposition, funds in custodia legis are not garnishable. See: Kusens v. Johannesburg, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 468; 3 Fla.Jur., Attachment and Garnishment, § 47; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 196, and cases cited therein. The appellee puts great stress on two opinions of the supreme court of this State, to wit: Young v. Stoutamire, 131 Fla. 535, 179 So. 797; Young v. Stoutamire, 131 Fla. 834, 180 So. 31. We find these not applicable in the instant case, for the following reasons: First, these two latter cases refer to proceedings in the trial court in which the funds were placed in custodia legis, whereas in the instant case a trial court other than that in whose registry the funds were placed is attempting to direct their disposition. Second, the Clerk of the circuit court is merely a ministerial officer of the court. See: State ex rel. Druissi v. Almand, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 905; Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Gregory, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 669. He was under an order of the circuit court directing him to deliver these funds to U.S. 1-163rd Street Corp., and if he complied with the order of the civil court of record he might be subject to contempt proceedings in the circuit court.
No sympathy is found with the efforts by the judgment debtor to escape its lawful obligations, but it would appear that the judgment creditor could seek appropriate relief either through an intervention in the chancery proceedings or through an independent suit in the circuit court in the nature of a creditor’s bill. See: 8 Fla. Jur., Creditors Suits.
Therefore, the final judgment in garnishment be and the same is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corbin v. State of Fla. ex rel. S. Morgan Slaughter, 324 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…on of the County Court only, and that the Clerk did not have standing to contest the validity of his order. The Circuit Court issued the writ and the Judge appealed. The Clerk is merely a ministerial officer of the court. Leatherman v. Gimourginas, 192 So. 2d 301 (Fla.App.3d, 1966). He does not exercise any discretion. Pan America World Airways v. Gregory, 96 So. 2d 669 (Fla.App.3d, 1957). He has no authority to contest the validity of any act of the court for which he acts as clerk which purports to have be…
-
O'Hern v. Donald, 256 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…arnishment, is indisputably correct. Where one court actually executes a writ of garnishment directed against money which has been paid into the registry of another court, such a writ is without legal effect. Leatherman v. Gimourginas, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 301. This principle of law, however, does not apply to the instant facts. In the instant case, we are not presented with a situation in which the Duval Circuit Court executed a writ of garnishment directed against the money which National Indemnity had…
-
Schmitt v. Boyle, 598 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…of Blanche Boyle, appeals from a nonfinal order denying a motion for garnishment and injunctive relief. We hold that the funds used to post the supersedeas bond are not garnishable while in the depository of the court. See Leatherman v. Gimourginas, 192 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (funds in custodia legis are not gar-nishable). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice and remand with directions that, upon proper application for return of the bond, the trial court should specify when the funds are to be re…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Gregory, 96 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Young v. Stoutamire, 131 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1938)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Nicolino Druissi v. Almand, 75 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1954)
- Young v. Stoutamire, 131 Fla. 834 (Fla. 1938)
- Tequesta Dev. Corp. v. Jupiter Util. Co., Inc., 182 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Kusens v. Johannesburg, 182 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)