Daniels v. Sorriso Dental Studio, LLC
164 So. 3d 778
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Daniels obtained a $5,310 judgment against Paula Demilly for breach of contract in August 2012; Demilly worked for Sorriso Dental Studio, LLC.
- A continuing writ of garnishment was served on Sorriso in March 2013; Sorriso initially defaulted, then answered admitting withholding wages to satisfy the debt and moved to set aside the default.
- Demilly filed for bankruptcy on April 17, 2013; the county court vacated Sorriso’s default and sua sponte stayed the garnishment pending the bankruptcy outcome.
- The bankruptcy court discharged Demilly’s debt in July 2013; Daniels then moved for judgment on the pleadings seeking recovery from Sorriso for wages it should have retained between service of the writ and Demilly’s bankruptcy filing.
- The county court denied Daniels’ motion and sua sponte dismissed the garnishment action; the circuit court affirmed, reasoning the bankruptcy discharge eliminated Daniels’ claim against Sorriso.
- Daniels sought second-tier certiorari review; the district court found the circuit court applied incorrect law and violated due process and granted relief, remanding for reconsideration under the correct law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of debtor’s bankruptcy discharge on garnishee’s independent liability | Daniels: Discharge does not bar his claim against Sorriso for funds Sorriso should have retained before the bankruptcy filing | Sorriso/courts below: Discharge of underlying debt eliminates defendant’s claim against garnishee | Held: Discharge extinguished Demilly’s personal liability but did not eliminate Sorriso’s independent statutory liability to Daniels for amounts it should have retained before bankruptcy |
| Proper remedy after denial of motion for judgment on the pleadings | Daniels: Denial should lead to trial on merits regarding garnishee liability | County court/circuit court: dismissed the action (no party requested dismissal) | Held: Sua sponte dismissal was improper; denial of judgment on the pleadings should not result in dismissal and dismissal violated due process |
| Standard of review on certiorari of circuit court appellate decision | Daniels: Circuit court must apply correct law and afford due process | Circuit court applied its view that bankruptcy discharge defeated garnishee liability | Held: Certiorari review limited to whether circuit court applied correct law and afforded due process; circuit court departed from essential requirements of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995) (scope of second-tier certiorari review limited to procedural due process and correct application of law)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (writ of certiorari requires departure from essential requirements of law producing miscarriage of justice)
- Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000) (clarifies narrow grounds for certiorari review)
- Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A. v. First Am. Holdings, Inc., 982 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2008) (garnishee must retain defendant’s property under §77.06 and may be held liable under §77.081)
- In re Masvidal, 10 F.3d 761 (11th Cir. 1993) (garnishee treated as trustee of defendant’s funds)