CopyCited 17 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1989 WL 134940
...Frio Ice's claim for prejudgment attachment is somewhat conclusory, undoubtedly because it anticipated that PACA would provide sufficient equitable relief. Frio Ice may be entitled to prejudgment attachment pursuant to the statutory grounds in Fla.Stat. § 76.04(1), (10) (1987), because it argues that defendants will fraudulently part with its property before judgment can be obtained against them, or because defendants are fraudulently disposing of its property....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 2967
...ing beyond the limits of the state, with which the appellee takes no issue. Such proceedings are authorized for the attachment of goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the debtor whenever the debtor "(4) resides beyond the limits of the State," § 76.04(4), Fla....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4561
...rit; [6] nor does it require a supporting affidavit when the debt is alleged to be due; [7] the writ, in such an instance, may issue on a conclusory allegation by the creditor that he believes in the existence of one of the grounds for attachment in Section 76.04, Florida Statutes; [8] most seriously the statute does not require an immediate post-seizure hearing, rather it simply keeps the court open at any time to hear dissolution motions....
...d as grounds for the Motion that movant had reason to believe: (a) the defendant is actually removing all his property to New Jersey in order to continue doing business there; (b) all officers, directors and stockholders reside out of the state. [3] 76.04 Grounds when debt due....
...writ is returnable. [7]
76.09 Motion when debt due. When the debt is actually due, the motion shall state the amount of the debt that is actually due, and that movant has reason to believe in the existence of one or more of the special grounds in §
76.04, stating specifically the grounds....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The statute under which the attachment was made provides as follows: "When the debt is actually due, the motion shall state the amount of the debt that is actually due, and that movant has reason to believe in the existence of one (1) or more of the special grounds in section 76.04, Florida Statutes, stating specifically the grounds." [1] To support their position appellants rely upon the decision rendered by the Third District Court of Appeal in the case of *157 Papadakos v....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
Ann. §
15.01 (Vernon 1974) Utah: Utah Code Ann. § 76-4-101(3) (1978); State v. Sommers, 569 P.2d 1110
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 485
...conveyed the property to Ms. Cerna or that it was actually owned by him, although ostensibly titled in her name. Cerna's primary contention here is that neither prejudgment attachment nor garnishment lie under the terms of the respective statutes, §§
76.04,
77.031, Fla....
...Insofar as attachment is concerned, we agree with the bank that the contention is without merit. It is first clear that prejudgment attachment properly lies in favor of a creditor, such as the bank, when it appears that the debtor is "fraudulently disposing of his property" to avoid payment of a debt. § 76.04(10), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
... In cases where the debt is actually due, such affidavit shall state the amount of the debt or the sum demanded, that the same is actually due, and that affiant has reason to believe in the existence of one or more of the special grounds hereinbefore enumerated in § 76.04 stating specifically such special ground or grounds." The use of the term "debt" has significance....
...the parties. Since the summary judgment appealed is a several judgment and as the claim is based on joint and several liability, I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a determination of joint liability. NOTES [1] See Fla. Stat. 1963, § 76.04(4), F.S.A....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 35356
...njunction against appellant and Carlos to prevent the transfer, encumbrance or other disposition of the unit, alleging that there was immediate danger of loss of the asset. Next, BIV filed a verified motion to attach the condominium unit pursuant to section 76.04, Florida Statutes (1989)....
...We affirm that portion of the omnibus order. Next, we consider the trial court's order granting the verified motion for attachment of the condominium. We are not convinced that the trial court erred in granting the motion. The verified motion was sufficient under section 76.04, Florida Statutes, and is supported by the record....
...1986), a prejudgment attachment is available against assets fraudulently transferred from the debtor and held in the name of another. Cerna,
503 So.2d at 1289. BIV sufficiently alleged that Carlos Rodriguez's transfer of title to appellant was an attempt to defraud his creditors, §
76.04(10), Fla. Stat. (1989); that Carlos Rodriguez resides out of state, §
76.04(4), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2867, 1990 WL 49827
...hment before judgment. The affidavit recited Sentinel's understanding that Hordis was about to sell all of its assets in Florida and thus was in the process of actually moving itself out of the state within the meaning of the attachment statute. See § 76.04(2), (3), Fla. Stat. (1989). The affidavit also recited that Hordis does not reside within this state. See §§ 76.04(4), Fla....
...While it is undisputed that Hordis has a manufacturing plant in Hillsborough County, it was error to issue an attachment where that relief was not requested in the motion. With respect to the merits, Sentinel contends that Hordis "resides out of the State," § 76.04(4), Fla. Stat. (1989), and that Sentinel is entitled to attachment under the statute. Sentinel argues that the statute grants attachment as a matter of right whenever a debt is "actually due," id. § 76.04, and the debt is owed by a nonresident. Id. § 76.04(4). Sentinel's reading of the statute is incorrect. First, the purpose of subsection 76.04(4), the nonresident portion of the attachment statute, is to confer in rem or quasi in *717 rem jurisdiction on a Florida court, see F.A....
...589, 609-10 (1869), subject to the limitations set forth in Shaffer v. Heitner,
433 U.S. 186, 199 n. 17, 207-17,
97 S.Ct. 2569, 2577 n. 17, 2581-86,
53 L.Ed.2d 683, 694 n. 17, 699-705 (1977). [2] As Sentinel's action is in personam, not in rem or quasi in rem, subsection
76.04(4) is unavailable to it in this action....
...iness outside of Florida, is of no moment; the inquiry here is one of presence in this jurisdiction. [3] Sentinel's arguments to the contrary are without merit. [4] Sentinel also contends that it established entitlement to the writ under subsections 76.04(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1989), because Sentinel believes that Hordis is actually removing its property from the state or is about to remove its property from the state....
...[5] Among the infirmities specifically identified by Unique Caterers was the fact that under the former statute, "the writ ... may issue on a conclusory allegation by the creditor that he believes in the existence of one of the grounds for attachment in Section 76.04, Florida Statutes......
...evidence in the file is that submitted by the defendant, which negates the plaintiff's case. Ignoring the insufficiency of the affidavit, at bottom Sentinel contends that the sale of Hordis by HGP, without more, satisfies the criteria of subsections 76.04(3) and (4), Florida Statutes. That is incorrect. The fact of such a sale does not show that Hordis "is actually removing [its] property out of the state," id. § 76.04(3), or "is about to remove [its] property out of the state," id. § 76.04(4), as those phrases have been construed under the decisional law, see Transportes Aereos Mercantiles Panamericanos, S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106984, 2008 WL 4514372
...Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion sought attachment based on Section
76.09, which allows a defendant's property to be attached when a "debt is actually due" and where the "movant has reason to believe in the existence of one or more of the special grounds in s.
76.04...." The special grounds of Section
76.04 asserted by Plaintiffs permit attachment where the debtor/defendant "(7) Is absconding....
...r favor." Marshall-Shaw v. Ford,
755 So.2d 162, 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing Fla. Stat. §§
76.24(1),
77.07(1)). The Valerios argue Plaintiffs have failed to establish that a debt is due and have also failed to show any of the special grounds of Section
76.04 to support the writ....
...airly approximated sum of $1.3 million. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have carried their burden with respect to this requirement. The Valerios also contend the writ should be dissolved because Plaintiffs have not presented evidence establishing any of the Section 76.04 special grounds. The undersigned is persuaded, however, the Valerios' alleged use of false names and addresses and other alleged fraud presented at the hearing is sufficient to satisfy the special grounds of Section 76.04, particularly subsection 8 regarding concealment....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13937
attachment and the second relates to garnishment. Section 76.-04 Florida Statutes (1983) reads as follows: 76
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32658, 2008 WL 1803768
...property and Chapter 77 sets forth the procedures for garnishment. These statutes include provisions, too numerous to summarize here, which provide a variety of limitations and protections during the collection process. For example, Florida Statute section
76.04 limits the circumstances under which a creditor may attach a debtor's property and section
76.12 requires that a writ of attachment not issue "until the person applying for it ......
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
did not allege a debt within the meaning of section
76.04, Florida Statutes (2022), nor were any of the
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
assets under the attachment statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. §
76.04-.05 (West 1987), provided that they can satisfy
