FREDERICK LONGO v. ASSOCIATED LIMOUSINE SERVICES, INC. and LIMOUSINE MANAGEMENT, INC.
236 So. 3d 1115
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Longo obtained a final money judgment (about $623,370) against Associated Limousine Services, Inc. (the judgment debtor) in 2011 that remained unsatisfied.
- In June 2016 Longo filed a Motion for Proceedings Supplementary and to Implead, with an affidavit, alleging the debtor was administratively dissolved and that members of the Boroday family and eight related business entities operated as alter egos/continuation of the debtor to thwart creditors.
- Longo sought (1) proceedings supplementary and examination of the debtor’s officer, and (2) issuance of Notices to Appear to the proposed impleader defendants to pursue assets or obligations held by them.
- The impleader defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Longo failed to satisfy the description requirement of section 56.29(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).
- The trial court denied the motion in full, finding Longo satisfied subsection (1) but failed to describe property, debts, or obligations as required by subsection (2); Longo appealed.
- The Fourth District reversed the denial of proceedings supplementary (subsection (1)) but affirmed the denial of impleader (subsection (2)), while permitting Longo to file a supplemental affidavit complying with §56.29(2). The court also explained how §56.29(2) can be satisfied in alter-ego cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proceedings supplementary must be granted where Longo filed a motion and affidavit under §56.29(1) | Longo: §56.29(1) requirements were met (unsatisfied judgment and affidavit), so proceedings supplementary are mandatory | Impleader defendants: (implicit) court may deny relief based on §56.29(2) defects | Held: Reversed — once §56.29(1) is satisfied the creditor is entitled to proceedings supplementary; court erred in denying them |
| Whether the trial court should have issued Notices to Appear to impleader defendants under §56.29(2) | Longo: alleged alter-ego facts and general acts of commingling and continuation justify impleader without particular property description | Impleader defendants: Longo failed to describe with reasonable particularity any property, debt, or obligation of the debtor in their hands as required by §56.29(2) | Held: Affirmed — Longo’s motion/affidavit failed to satisfy §56.29(2) description requirement; Notices to Appear properly denied, but without prejudice to supplementing the affidavit |
| Whether §56.29(2)’s description requirement can be satisfied in alter-ego cases | Longo: (implicitly) alter-ego allegations should allow impleader without tracing specific transferred property | Impleader defendants: statute requires particular description regardless of theory (fraudulent transfer or alter ego) | Held: Court adopts middle ground — description may refer to property/debt/obligations of an alleged alter ego (since law treats them as one entity), but statutory particularity requirement still applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargeant v. Al-Saleh, 137 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (standard of review: de novo for legal issues on proceedings supplementary)
- Young v. McKenzie, 46 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1950) (proceedings supplementary allow creditor to ferret out assets held by others)
- Biloxi Casino Corp. v. Wolf, 900 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (upon showing statutory prerequisites, court has no discretion to deny proceedings supplementary)
- Amjad Munim, M.D., P.A. v. Azar, 648 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (court may hold successor corporation liable as alter ego to provide complete relief)
- Zureikat v. Shaibani, 944 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (proceedings supplementary enable direct relief in the recovering court)
- NTS Fort Lauderdale Office Joint Venture v. Serchay, 710 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (impleader under §56.29 allows third parties to be sued but does not determine substantive rights)