152 So. 3d 657
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Action arising from minor's sexual abuse claim; $5,250,000 verdict against Charter Schools and final judgment entered April 23, 2014; post-judgment motions for JNOV, new trial or remittitur denied June 9, 2014; writs of garnishment issued June 10, 11, 2014 and frozen accounts; Charter Schools posted supersedeas bond and appealed on June 13, 2014; motion to dissolve writs denied; dissent argues “determined” should mean “filed” with clerk, not just signed.
- Charter Schools filed timely post-judgment motions April 30, 2014; Rule 1.550 permits execution during life of judgment but not until recording or determination of timely post-trial motions; rule interpretation is central to whether garnishment could proceed before rendition of the order.
- Supersedeas bond posted to stay execution pending appeal; appellate stay under Rule 9.310 and timing of rendition vs determination affects whether garnishment constitutes premature execution.
- Majority holds that “determined” means the moment the trial court signs the order denying post-trial motions, not when the order is rendered; garnishment stayed by bond if timely filed; no reversible error in denying dissolution of writs.
- Court notes possible remedy to reduce bond amount in light of garnishment; discusses notice requirements and e-mail service failures for garnishment motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'determined' in Rule 1.550(a). | Charter Schools: determined equals rendering; | Appellees: determined equals signing; | Determined means filing with clerk (rendering) and supports stay. |
| Can execution occur before rendition of an order denying post-trial motions? | Charter Schools: execution should be stayed until rendered; | Appellees: execution permissible post-dictation; | Execution stayed only after proper determination; garnishment premature otherwise. |
| Adequacy of notice for garnishment motions. | Charter Schools: improper notice undermines due process; | Appellees: notice not strictly required at issue stage; | Failure to serve motions by e-mail constitutes reversible error. |
| Effect of supersedeas bond on garnishment. | Charter Schools: bond should stay garnishment; | Appellees: bond posted post-judgment governs stay; | Bond governs stay; court may reduce bond amount to reflect garnishment. |
| Remedy for funds frozen by garnishment during appeal. | Charter Schools: protect assets; | Appellees: bond provides stay. | Remedy to reduce bond or stay garnishment consistent with rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Jones, 648 So.2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (temporary stay to render order; stay possible before rendition)
- Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A. v. Barnett, 338 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (pre-stay considerations for post-trial motions)
- Chapman v. Rose, 295 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (temporary stay of execution for four days; post-trial motions)
- Freedom Insurors, Inc. v. M.D. Moody & Sons, Inc., 869 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (stay or reduce supersedeas bond reflecting garnishment)
- In re Rules of Summary Procedure, 270 So.2d 729 (Fla.1968) (amendment context for rule 1.550; rendering vs recording vs determination)
- In re Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure, 211 So.2d 206 (Fla.1968) (context for rendition/determination distinctions)
- Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So.3d 567 (Fla.2010) (final judgment final for appeal; stay via supersedeas)
- McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992) (prejudgment interest reservation and appeal impact)
- GEICO Fin. Servs. v. Kramer, 575 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (garnishment and stay principles)