121 So. 3d 83
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Infal obtained a $91,367.58 money judgment against Value Seafood in Oct. 2009; Infal assigned that judgment to Akerman in June 2010.
- Akerman issued writs of garnishment (First Writs) against Blondal and Cache in Aug. 2011 to collect on the judgment.
- Garnishees answered denying indebtedness and alleged no possession of debtor’s property; Akerman replied, alleging fraudulent transfers from Value Seafood to the Garnishees.
- The Garnishees moved to dissolve the First Writs under § 77.07(5) after six months passed without Akerman filing a motion for final judgment or seeking an extension; the trial court found the writs automatically dissolved.
- The clerk issued new writs (Second Writs); the trial court then entered an Amended Order dismissing the Second Writs, reasoning a dissolution under § 77.07(5) precluded subsequent writs.
- Akerman appealed; the district court affirmed that the First Writs were automatically dissolved but reversed the dismissal of the Second Writs and remanded with directions to reinstate them and set a trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file a motion for final judgment or obtain an extension within 6 months causes automatic dissolution of a garnishment writ under § 77.07(5) | Akerman: writs were not dissolved because trial was noticed and proceedings were ongoing | Garnishees: writs automatically dissolved after 6 months without motion or extension | Held: Automatic dissolution occurred under § 77.07(5); affirmed in this respect |
| Whether dissolution under § 77.07(5) bars refiling of subsequent writs against the same garnishee | Akerman: may refile; statute permits extension and does not bar subsequent writs | Garnishees: dissolution is tantamount to a final judgment and precludes successive writs (relying on Matthews) | Held: § 77.07(5) does not bar filing subsequent writs; trial court erred in dismissing Second Writs; reversed and remanded |
| Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the Second Writs denied Akerman due process | Akerman: dismissal prevented adjudication of its meritorious claim alleging fraudulent transfer | Garnishees: dismissal appropriate after automatic dissolution | Held: dismissal without giving creditor an opportunity to litigate merits implicated due process; reinstatement ordered |
| Applicability of Matthews v. First Federal to bar successive garnishments | Garnishees: Matthews treats a dissolution as final judgment for purposes of § 77.28, so successive writs should be barred | Akerman: Matthews concerns § 77.28 and different facts; not controlling here | Held: Matthews is distinguishable and does not bar successive writs under § 77.07(5) |
Key Cases Cited
- Marquez v. BlueCare Home Health Servs., Inc., 116 So.3d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (de novo review of statutory construction)
- Gigliotti Contracting N., Inc. v. Traffic Control Prod. of N. Fla. Inc., 788 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (garnishment procedures must be strictly construed)
- Matthews v. First Federal Savings & Loan of Englewood, 571 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (discussed by court; held distinguishable because it involved § 77.28 and different facts)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (court may not extend unambiguous statutory language)