199 So. 3d 1026
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Arrow Energy obtained a Michigan final judgment (Oct. 2010) against Aviation Fuel International and Sean Wagner and filed it in Florida; Arrow served a writ of garnishment on SunTrust in May 2011.
- SunTrust answered it was holding $122,519.75 owed to the judgment debtors; the Florida trial court entered final judgment against SunTrust for that amount plus post-judgment interest at 4.75% (2013).
- SunTrust paid the principal amount but stopped payment after a third-party claimed the funds; subsequent litigation, bankruptcy proceedings, and a motion for relief from judgment followed.
- SunTrust moved to void portion of the garnishment judgment that required it to pay post-judgment interest, arguing the court lacked authority to impose interest on a garnishee beyond the garnishee’s actual liability.
- The trial court denied relief; SunTrust appealed. The Fourth District reversed, holding the award of interest against the garnishee was unauthorized and therefore void to that extent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arrow) | Defendant's Argument (SunTrust) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a garnishee may be required to pay post-judgment interest on funds held | Garnishment is effectively a judgment for money; §55.03 authorizes interest on judgments | Garnishment is quasi in rem; garnishee liability is limited to the amount it owes the judgment debtor, so interest cannot be imposed on the garnishee | Court: Garnishee cannot be required to pay post-judgment interest; judgment void to that extent (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether garnishment judgments are within the scope of statutes that award interest or fees for execution/judgments | Interest statute applies to judgments generally, so interest should run | Garnishment statutes must be strictly construed; no statutory provision authorizes interest against a garnishee and §77.083 forbids judgments exceeding garnishee liability | Court: Garnishment is not a typical money judgment for these purposes; no authority to assess interest against garnishee |
| Whether statutes allow offset/coverage of garnishee costs (and analogously interest) | Awarding interest is proper to fully compensate creditor | Statutes (e.g., §77.28 and §77.083) contemplate that garnishee will not incur out-of-pocket liability; fees/costs are to be determined and offset against amounts owed | Court: Statutory scheme shows garnishee should not bear uncompensated liability; interest would exceed statutory scope and violate due process if imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burkhart v. Cir. Ct. of Eleventh Jud. Cir., 1 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1941) (describing garnishment as quasi in rem)
- Ruth v. Dep’t of Legal Affairs, 684 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1996) (in rem jurisdiction requires authority over subject matter and the property)
- Sec. Bank, N.A. v. BellSouth Advert. & Publ’g Corp., 679 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (extent of garnishee liability equals amount it owes the judgment debtor)
- BellSouth Advert. & Publ’g. Corp. v. Sec. Bank, N.A., 698 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1997) (approving the Third DCA’s garnishment principles)
- Paz v. Hernandez, 654 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (garnishment statutes are in derogation of common law and must be strictly construed)
- Carpenter v. Benson, 478 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (addressing limits on garnishee liability and due process concerns)
- Johnson v. Bednar, 573 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1991) (contempt remedies may compensate injured parties for losses from noncompliance)
- Parisi v. Broward Cty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000) (noting scope of prior decision and its application)