WESLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BISCAYNE CONSTRUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Wesley Construction appealed an interlocutory order directing the Port Authority of Dade County to distrain (withhold) funds owed to Wesley in satisfaction of a judgment held by Biscayne Construction. The court reversed, holding that counties are immune from garnishment proceedings under Florida law.
The court held that a county is immune from garnishment proceedings under Florida law, and therefore the trial court erred in issuing an order directing the Port Authority of Dade County to distrain funds. The order was reversed because it constituted a garnishment against Dade County, which is prohibited by law.
[1] A county is immune from garnishment proceedings.
[2] A court order directing a county to distrain funds owed to a third party constitutes an impermissible garnishment against the county.
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 county is immune from garnishment proceedings filed pursuant to Chapter 77, Florida Statutes (1975)”
The court's holding establishing sovereign immunity as the basis for reversal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment was entered on November 7, 1975, in favor of Biscayne Construction against Wesley Construction in the amount of $21,239.10. Biscayne …
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 Constructive Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Dade County entered upon the motion of appellees, directing the Port Authority of Dade County to distrain funds which it owed to appellant in connection with construction work.
The order complained of on appeal is as follows:
“ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DIRECT COUNTY TO DISTRAIN FUNDS
“THIS CAUSE COMING ON TO BE HEARD BEFORE ME, the undersigned Judge of the above-entitled Court, upon the Motion of the Plaintiff, BISCAYNE CONSTRUCTION, INC., to Direct County to Distrain
Funds due the Defendant, WESLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and the Court having reviewed said Motion, having noted a Final Judgment was entered on November 7, 1975, in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the amount of Twenty-One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Nine and Ten/100 Dollars ($21,239.10), having heard argument of counsel for the respective parties and being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is, upon consideration
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
“1. That the Motion filed by the Plaintiff, BISCAYNE CONSTRUCTION, to direct the Port Authority of Dade County, State of Florida, to dis-train funds due the Defendant, WESLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY in the sum of Twenty-One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Nine and Ten/100 Dollars ($21,239.10) pursuant to contract # 5135-75 entitled Temporary Improvements Phase Five be and the same is hereby granted.
“2. That the Port Authority of Dade County, State of Florida, be and it is hereby directed to distrain funds by acting as constructive trustee of the sum of Twenty-One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Nine and Ten/100 Dollars ($21,239.10) for the use and benefit of the Plaintiff, BISCAYNE CONSTRUCTION, INC., pending further Order of this Court, said sum being due the Defendant, WESLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, pursuant to a contract with the Port Authority of Dade County, State of Florida, bearing contract # 513-C5 for ‘temporary improvements — phase five.’ ”
Appellant has assigned numerous errors which it contends entitles it to a reversal of the order appealed. We, however, find no useful purpose in discussing all of the alleged errors in that the following is disposi-tive of this appeal.
It is the contention of appellant that the trial court erred in entering the above order in that it amounts to a garnishment order against Dade County, and as such, is not permitted by law.
We find merit in appellant’s contention and reverse on the authority of Michigan Lumber and Mfg. Co. v. Duval County, 45 Fla. 472, 34 So. 245 (1903); Board of County Commissioners of Okaloosa County v. Gulf Pipeline Company, 168 So. 2d 757 (Fla.1st DCA 1964) and Op. Att’y Gen. 069-12 “Sovereign Immunity,” all to the effect that a county is immune from garnishment proceedings filed pursuant to Chapter 77, Florida Statutes (1975).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G & J Invs. Corp. v. Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 429 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…e affirm. Absent a clear and unequivocal legislative enactment making the state, its agencies and subdivisions liable in garnishment proceedings, they are immune from such proceedings. See Wesley Construction Company v. Biscayne Construction, Inc., 341 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (order directing county to distrain funds owing to a party for the benefit of such party’s creditor is equivalent to garnishment proceeding against a state’s subdivision and impermissible); State (Dept. of Transp.) (Parks and Recr…
-
Pavex Corp. v. Broward Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 498 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…n to recognize that the subcontractor had an adequate remedy at law by enforcing a claim against the surety under the statute. Board of County Commissioners of Okaloosa County, at 760. See also Wesley Construction Co. v. Biscayne Construction, Inc., 341 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Appellant contends that no such remedy exists here since the surety is insolvent. Appellant argues that its cause of action was recognized in City of St. Augustine v. Brooks, 55 So. 2d 96 (Fla.1951). In . that case the supreme c…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. United Guar. Residential Ins. Co. of N.C., 645 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…arnishment proceedings, they are immune from such proceedings.” G & J Inv. Corp. v. Florida Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 429 So. 2d 391, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (citations omitted); see also Wesley Constr. Co. v. Biscayne Constr., Inc., 341 So. 2d 786, 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In 1993 the legislature amended the garnishment statute by waiving sovereign immunity for certain continuing writs of garnishment. Ch. 93-256, § 1, Laws of Fla. The new statutory language states, in part: A debtor’s status…
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
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Okaloosa Cnty. v. Gulf Pipeline Co., Inc., 168 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Mich. Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Duval Cnty. Garnishee, 45 Fla. 472 (Fla. 1903)