Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Stat. (2002). In addition to filing the answer, the garnishee is required to "retain . . . any deposit, account, or tangible or intangible personal property in the possession or control of such garnishee" until disposition or dissolution of the writ. § 77.06(2), Fla....

...ff may obtain a monetary judgment against the garnishee. See § 77.081(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). On the other hand, the Legislature, in recognizing the risk of liability for a garnishee, has provided immunity for any garnishee acting in good faith. Section 77.06(3), Florida Statutes (2002), states: In any case where a garnishee in good faith is in doubt as to whether any indebtedness or property is required by law to be included in the garnishee's answer or retained by it, the garnishee *633 may include and retain the same, subject to the provisions of s....

...We focus on the statutory provision that requires that a garnishee "report" and "retain" any property that is in its "possession or control" at the time the writ is served because there is no express duty in the garnishment statute requiring the garnishee to issue a stop payment order. See § 77.06(2), Fla....

...[7] Several of those courts were concerned *637 with the risk of liability for a non-bank garnishee if the garnishee stopped payment on a check that the debtor had negotiated to a holder in due course. [8] However, in Florida, our statutory scheme protects against liability for a garnishee who acts in good faith. See § 77.06(3), Fla....

...f not, to issue a stop payment order if it had the ability to do so. [15] At a minimum, AME had an obligation to fully answer the writ by explaining the status of the funds as part of its good faith obligation imposed by the garnishment statute. See § 77.06(3), Fla....

...shor creditor in collecting on a debt due him by the defendant debtor. The garnishee is also protected against possible liability for its actions in serving an answer and garnishing funds so long as it acts in good faith. . . . The statutory scheme [section 77.06] cannot tolerate incomplete answers wherein only some of the debts owed are disclosed and garnished....

...serve by delivery or by mail on the defendant and each such other person notice of the writ and the garnishees answer and shall file in the proceeding a certificate of such service at the address of the defendant as shown on the records of the bank. § 77.06(2), Fla. Stat. (1983) (emphasis added). Section 77.06(2) now reads: The garnishee shall report in its answer and retain, subject to the provisions of s....

...e plaintiff's $36,576 judgment against debtor Garfield. B. The garnishment statute allows plaintiff BellSouth to satisfy its judgment against *799 debtor Garfield by garnishing any of Garfield's money or property which is held by the garnishee Bank. § 77.06(1) Fla.Stat. (1993). The statute states: 77.06 Writ; effect.— (1) Service of the writ shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him to defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in his possession or control at the time of the service of the writ or at any time between the service and the time of his answer....

...1992) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). "Furthermore, construction of a statute which would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result ... should be avoided." State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla.1981). Section 77.01, Florida Statutes, describes the right to garnishment. Subsection 77.06(1), quoted in part II. B. supra, specifically defines the legal effect of service of a writ of garnishment. Under subsection 77.06(1), the garnishee is only liable for debts due by the garnishee to the defendant, and for tangible or intangible personal property of defendant which is in possession of the garnishee. Subsection 77.06(1) by its terms applies to all writs of garnishment. Subsection 77.081(2), relied on by BellSouth, must be read in pari materia with subsection 77.06(1). It follows that in a default situation, the garnishee's liability cannot exceed the amount prescribed by subsection 77.06(1)....

...shee has withheld amounts that exceed the plaintiff's judgment in the underlying action, plus interest and costs. The statute does not apply to the postjudgment garnishment proceeding at issue here, and in any event does not supplant the terms of subsection 77.06(1)....

...I would instead affirm the trial court's order refusing to set aside the default and final judgment in its entirety. The mere service of the writ of garnishment made the "garnishee liable for all debts due by him or her to defendant ... at the time of the service of the writ...." § 77.06(1), Fla.Stat....

...in the possession or control of such garnishee; and the answer shall state the name or names and addresses, if known to the garnishee, of the defendant and any other persons having or appearing to have an ownership interest in the involved property. § 77.06(2), Fla.Stat....

...between such times, and whether the garnishee knows of any other person indebted to the defendant or who may have any of the property of the defendant in his possession or control. The amount set in plaintiff's motion is $36,576.00. . . . . Chapter 77.06 Florida Statutes: "Service of the writ shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him to defendant, and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in his possession or control at the time of the service of the writ or a...

...See §§ 77.20,.21, Fla.Stat. (1965). [8] As already indicated, if the garnishee is holding money or property worth less than the plaintiff's underlying judgment, then plaintiff's judgment against garnishee cannot exceed the amount specified by subsection 77.06(1)....

...However, I agree with the cited holdings of the First, Second, and Fourth District Courts of Appeal that section 77.081 applies to postjudgment garnishments. I disagree with the court's assertion that this provision is in any way inconsistent with subsection 77.06(1). Subsection 77.06(1) makes the garnishee liable to the plaintiff for the assets of the garnishment defendant, whatever amount they may be, upon service of the writ....

...s recorded security interest and financing agreements with Bodin there were no monies due Bodin on said notes between the time of the service of the tax warrant on the Dubins and their response — the applicable period under the garnishment statute, section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (1979) — and therefore "garnishment" under section 197.086(2) was improper and the debt should be paid to Heller....

...This construction is supported by the case law regarding strict construction of tax statutes previously discussed herein. In reaching this conclusion, since the warrant is to have the "same force as a writ of garnishment," we have additionally referred to the language of the applicable garnishment statute, section 77.06, Florida Statutes (1979), which states: (1) Service of the writ shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him to defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in his possession or control at the time...

...dgment on damages. The district court concluded that the writ of garnishment sought to recover an unliquidated sum from Security Bank in that it sought to obtain whatever money Garfield had on deposit with the Bank. Id. The district court found that section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (1995), [1] only allowed BellSouth *256 to satisfy its judgment against debtor Garfield by garnishing any of Garfield's money or property held by the garnishee bank....

...However, the district court found section 77.081(2) only applicable to prejudgment garnishment and further concluded that when this section is read in pari materia with the rest of the garnishment statute, it was clear that Security Bank's liability in default could not exceed the amount prescribed in section 77.06(1)....

...The primary purpose of the garnishee's answer to the writ of garnishment is "to establish the garnishee's position on the amount of assets in the garnishee's possession available to satisfy the garnishor's judgment against the defendant." Security Bank, 679 So.2d at 804 (Jorgenson, J., dissenting); accord § 77.06(2), Fla....

...However, I am convinced that it is only a case of first impression because only the court below has read the garnishment statute to require notice of a hearing on damages after a default where the amount of the judgment against the defendant is clearly stated in the writ. SHAW, J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 77.06, Florida Statutes (1995), specifies the effect of a writ of garnishment....

...NOTES [1] Janice is Robert's first wife, and Gary is his son. [2] The portion of funds belonging to Nancy Zivitz is not at issue in this case. [3] No one argued in this appeal, nor do we imply, that the garnishee's answer should be regarded as anything other than its statutory compliance with section 77.06(2) (requiring garnishee's answer to report any property in its possession or control and the names and addresses "of the defendant and any other persons having or appearing to have an ownership interest in the involved property")....

...to be formed. The writ requires the garnishee to file and serve an answer "stating whether the garnishee is indebted to defendant, at the time of the answer or was indebted at the time of service of the writ, or at any time between such times". F.S. § 77.06 provides that service of the writ of garnishment upon the garnishee "shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him to defendant * * * at the time of the service of the writ or at any time between the service and the time of his answer." Sub judice the garnishee answered that she was not so indebted. F.S. § 77.061 provides for a reply by the plaintiff (formerly known as a traverse and so designated sub judice) by which plaintiff may, if not satisfied with the garnishee's answer, place in issue any allegations of the answer as plaintiff may desire....

...iod. As stated by the court on page 18. The fact that the Garnishee satisfied the writs on August 30, 1983 (during the preference period) is irrelevant. The lien of the writ attached at the time of service and its effectiveness has been adjudicated. Section 77.06 of the Florida Statutes provides in pertinent part as follows: Section 77.06....

...third person. The officers, agents and employees of any companies or corporations are third persons in regard to the companies or corporations, and as such are subject to garnishment after judgment against the companies or corporations." Fla. Stat. § 77.06(1), F.S.A., reads: "Service of the writ shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him to defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in his possession or control at the time of the service of the writ or at any time between the service and the time of his answer." 15 U.S.C....

...ct to that set forth in paragraph (2)." ...... "(c) No court of the United States or any State may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section." It is clear that Florida garnishment statutory provisions §§ 77.01 and 77.06, F.S.A., do not contain a limitation on the portion of a person's wages that may be garnished, the only exception being the "head of the family" exemption provided by Fla....

...ubject. Therefore, we hold that the federal legislation pertaining to the maximum allowed to be garnished pre-empts our state garnishment provisions not containing such limitation. Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1673, pre-empts Fla. Stat. §§ 77.01 and 77.06, F.S.A....

...w, do not frustrate the effect of the federal legislation. See Hodgson v. Cleveland Municipal Court, 326 F. Supp. 419 (N.D.Ohio, 1971). In conclusion, we hold that 15 U.S.C. § 1673, is a substantive provision and pre-empts Fla. Stat. §§ 77.01 and 77.06, F.S.A., and that the remaining Florida garnishment provisions are not in conflict with the Federal law and therefore valid....

...d to a judgment against the garnishee for the full amount of his judgment, $32,500. We disagree. To address the issues here, a review of the garnishment statute is necessary. Garnishment in Florida is governed by Chapter 77, Florida Statutes (1983). Section 77.06 provides that service of the writ of garnishment on the garnishee shall make the garnishee liable "......

...ty, the PSC or the customers of the utility and "that defendant [the utility] does not have control of the account." Because the advertising agency did not file a reply to the answer, for purposes of this proceeding the answer must be taken as true. § 77.061, Fla. Stat. (1989). Pursuant to sections 77.055 and 77.06, Florida Statutes (1989), the advertising agency served a copy of the writ and the bank's answer upon the defendants and others named in the garnishee's answer as having an interest in the garnished account....

...r from the garnishee. The writ of garnishment only makes the garnishee liable for debts due to the defendant and "for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in his possession or control at the time of the service of the writ... ." § 77.06(1), Fla....

...lien in favor of the garnishor. Continental National Bank of Miami v. Tavormina (In re Masvidal), 10 F.3d 761, 763 (11th Cir.1993) (" Masvidal "). After the decision in Mims, however, the Florida legislature amended the Florida garnishment statute, section 77.06, Fla....

...(effective July 1, 2000), to specifically overrule the result of Masvidal. [1] The addition *906 to the statute provides that "[s]ervice of the writ creates a lien in or upon any such debts or property at the time of service . . . [of the writ]." Fla. Stat. § 77.06(a) (last line to subsection (a) was added by the amendments)....

...Because the State court has heard and, perhaps, will continue to hear facets of the issue before me, it may prove useful to state the basis for the foregoing ruling. In May, 1982, the judgment creditor garnished the debtor's brokerage account. The service of the writ created a lien against the property. Florida Statutes, § 77.06; In re Demountable House Corp., 58 F.Supp....

...We agree with the appellant, however, as to his second contention relating to the propriety of the trial judge's order holding him accountable as garnishee for the salary paid to Terzian subsequent to February 6, 1957, the date he filed his answer in the cause. By the terms of our statute, § 77.06, Fla....

...y a third person, and any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in the possession or control of a third person. § 77.01, Fla. Stat. (2013). A judgment creditor may serve such a writ of garnishment on a garnishee, such as a bank. See § 77.06(1), Fla....

...nsfer sought to be avoided was effected on the 91st day or outside the preference period. It is Fleetwood's position that the date on which the funds were actually paid over, pursuant to the writ, is irrelevant to the resolution of this controversy. Section 77.06 of the Florida Statutes provides in pertinent part as follows: Section 77.06....

...Writ; effect (1) Service of the writ shall make the garnishee liable for all debts due by him to defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in his possession or control at the time of the service of the writ or at any time between such service and the time of his answer. § 77.06(1) Fla.Stat....

...tatutory lien in favor of MSM on the date the Writ of Garnishment was served upon the garnishee, Palm Bay. Because MSM obtained its Writ of Garnishment in 1999, the Court must examine Florida's garnishment law in effect at that time. Florida Statute Section 77.06 established the effect of service of a writ of garnishment upon a garnishee and provided in relevant part as follows: 77.06....

...to defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in the garnishee's possession or control at the time of the service of the *432 writ or at any time between the service and the time of the garnishee's answer. Fla. Stat § 77.06 (1999)....

...effect. However, the garnishment law considered by the Eleventh Circuit Court was substantively the same as Florida's garnishment law in 1999. As such, the Masvidal decision controls in this case. [6] The Florida legislature amended Florida Statute Section 77.06 in 2000, abrogating the ruling of the Eleventh Circuit in Masvidal. Pursuant to the amended Section 77.06, service of a writ of garnishment thereafter did create a lien in favor of the creditor/garnishor....

...It should be noted that the Trustee did not file a Motion for Summary Judgment in adversary proceeding 9:08-ap-00282-ALP. In both Motions, the Defendants contend that based on the amended Florida garnishment statute effective July 1, 2000, Florida Statutes. § 77.06(1) provides that the "service of a writ creates a lien in or upon any such debts or property at the time of the service or at the time such debts or property come into a garnishee's possession or control." The Trustee concedes, as he must, t...

...liens. This in turn, involves an analysis of the construction of the judicial terms used by the Bankruptcy Code versus the terms used by the Florida legislature in its amendment to the Florida garnishment statute effective in 2000, Florida Statutes § 77.06(1)....

...M.D.Fla.2002), in which the court set forth the history of the Florida garnishment statute and the amendment, which ostensibly overruled the result of prior case law. In analyzing the Florida legislature's amendment to the statute, the Giles court *603 explained that the amendment to Fla. Stat. § 77.06, which became effective July 1, 2000, specifically overruled the decision in In re Masvidal, 10 F.3d 761 (11th Cir....

...06-10619-JKO, 19 Fla. L. Weekly, Fed. B. 247, 2006 WL 1751740 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 2006). In Martineau, the creditor served the writ of garnishment on February 10, 2006, two weeks prior to the petition date. The court in Martineau held that "[u]nder current § 77.06 Fla....

...Without contextual support, therefore, there is not even a mild presumption here. Accordingly, the maxim is at best a description, after the fact, of what the court has discovered from context." Black's Law Dictionary 602 (7th ed.1999). It cannot be denied that Fla. Stat. § 77.06(1) provides that the service of a writ creates a lien which attaches to the property at the time of service....

...clearly and obviously intended to command. If Gabaldon had a good faith doubt as to whether the writ required him to include in his answer the property of or indebtedness to his client, he could have availed himself of the exculpatory provisions of Section 77.06(3), Florida Statutes. He chose not to do so at his risk. A judgment creditor who is not satisfied with the garnishee's answer may serve a reply denying the allegations of the answer (Section 77.061) and demanding a jury trial on the issues made (Section 77.08)....

...Debtor's insolvency at the time relevant. It should be evident from this record that the threshold issue which must be resolved is whether or not by virtue of the amendment to the Florida garnishment statute effective July 1, 2000, Florida Statutes § 77.06, the Writs became fixed the moment it was served on the garnishee. The amendment to Fla. Stat. § 77.06, was adopted by the Florida legislature to alter the previous decision held by the Eleventh Circuit in the case of In re Masvidal, 10 F.3d 761 (11th Cir.1993)....

...The court in Lastra, held that "the service of a writ of garnishment on a bank, prior to the bankruptcy petition, created a statutory lien in favor of the creditor," citing Marineau, a facially similar case. Lastra at * 1. The court in Marineau held that "[u]nder current § 77.06 Fla. Stat., the service of a writ of garnishment creates a lien on the garnished funds." Marineau at *1. The Plaintiff does not dispute the proposition of the effect of the amendment to Florida garnishment statute § 77.06 Fla....

...9:08-bk-04365-ALP) two adversary proceedings, filed by Robert E. Tardif Jr., as Chapter 7 Trustee, against Congro Finanz AG and Primus *861 GmbH, who were the named Defendants in both adversary proceedings. This Court held that, It cannot be denied that Fla. Stat. § 77.06(1) provides that the service of a writ creates a lien which attaches to the property at the time of service....

...arnishment to retain any property of the judgment debtor in the garnishee's possession or control until disposition or dissolution of the writ. See Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A. v. First Am. Holdings, Inc., 982 So. 2d 628, 632 (Fla. 2008) (citing § 77.06, Fla....

...The respondent Taub has likewise been unable to present us with any authority for this action of the trial court. The rule is that once a bank account has been garnished, the bank is obligated to retain funds of the depositor in obedience to the writ. See Fla. Stat. § 77.06(2), F.S.A....

...Under Florida law, which is controlling in this proceeding, any lien created by writ of garnishment takes effect on the day the writ is served. In re Demountable House Corp., 58 F.Supp. 955 (S.D.Fla.1945); In re Snedaker, 39 B.R. 41 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1984); In re M.D.F., Inc., 39 B.R. 16 (Bankr.S.D. Fla.1984); Fla.Stat. § 77.06 (1981). Section 77.06 of the Florida Statutes provides in pertinent part as follows: (1) Service of the writ shall make the garnishee liable for all debts due by him to the defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in his possession or control at the time of service of the writ or at any time between such service and the time of his answer. Fla.Stat. § 77.06(1) (1981) (emphasis added)....

...control at the time" that the writ is served. § 77.04, Fla. Stat. (2002). Additionally, the law makes the garnishee liable for any amount that it holds but fails to properly report in the answer or fails to retain for the benefit of the garnishor. § 77.06....

...payee in exchange for value before service of the writ of garnishment. If the nonbank garnishee stops payment on the check, it might subject itself to liability to an innocent third party. However, the Florida garnishment law addresses this concern. Section 77.06(3) provides that the garnishee shall not be held liable to the defendant or "to any other person claiming the same or any interest therein or claiming to have sustained damage" due to the garnishee's retention, in good faith, of the funds until the matter is properly resolved by the garnishment procedures....

in accordance with Chapter 77, and primarily-Section 77.06(2) and (3), Florida Statutes.” Later that

...BDT served Bank with a writ of garnishment. Bank responded by answering the writ and moving to dismiss the writ. In its answer, Bank generally denied the writ’s allegations, and identified Villamorey as the account holder.2 Pursuant to section 77.06(3) of the Florida Statutes (2017),3 1 We have appellate jurisdiction because the discovery order determines that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over Villamorey....

...BDT claimed that these dividend funds, held in the Villamorey account at Bank, actually belonged to Lisa, and therefore were subject to BDT’s garnishment. Pursuant to section 77.055 of the Florida Statutes (2017),5 BDT retain the same, . . . subject to disposition as provided in this chapter. . .. § 77.06(3), Fla....

...l of appel-lee’s accounts and in not notifying the ap-pellee of the garnishment until nearly a month later. Furthermore, the bank cannot rely upon any alleged fear of liability for improperly garnisheeing the wrong accounts since Florida Statutes, § 77.06(3) protects the bank from any such liability....

...Further, they contend that Farm Credit could have solved its problem by appealing the Evans judgment or by answering Evans’ complaint to the effect that it was not holding funds belonging to Double H when Evans filed his writ. Appellees contend that Farm Credit violated the requirements of section 77.06, Florida Statutes, by failing to retain the funds after serving its answer to appellees’ writ....

...son, and any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in the possession or control of a third person. § 77.01, Fla. Stat. (2013). A judgment creditor may serve such a writ of garnishment on a garnishee, such as a bank. See § 77.06(1), Fla....

...r service of the writ and before it served its answer. As far as Lanahan and First Federal are concerned, the rent was paid. The remaining issue is whether National Health Laboratories, Inc., is liable to plaintiff in the amount of the January rent. Section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes, provides: Service of the writ shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him to defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in his possession or control at the time of the service of the writ or at any time between the service and the time of his answer....

...The undisputed evidence shows that the writ of garnishment was served on National Health Laboratories, Inc., on December 6, 1988, and that the garnishee, National Health Laboratories, Inc., paid the January rent to Lanahan after this date but prior to serving its answer. Under the clear terms of § 77.06(1), National Health Laboratories, Inc., remains liable to plaintiff for the full amount of the January rent....

...Here, the record before us, including the Bank’s answers to interrogatories, contains disputed issues of material fact regarding the amount owed by the garnishee Bank. We therefore find the trial court erred in granting Cobb’s motion for summary judgment. Section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (2008), specifically provides that in a garnishment action, “[sjervice of the writ shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him or her to defendant ......

...*82 Finally, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the Bank’s motion for discharge. The Bank argues that the trial court erred in denying the Bank’s motion for discharge because Cobb did not timely serve a reply to the Bank’s answer pursuant to section 77.061....

...We note that the trial court initially denied Cobb’s motion for summary judgment against the Bank. The trial court changed its position after Cobb's motion for rehearing, con-eluding that the initial answers to the writs filed by the Bank were improperly submitted pro se. . Section 77.061 provides the following: Reply....

...of a real estate commission were equitably owned by the broker to whom the commission was due, [and] ... were ... not subject to garnishment by a judgment creditor of the seller.” General argues, however, that amendments made to section 77.01 and section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (2002) effectively overruled the decision in Bain....

DCA 1996), approved, 698 So.2d 254 (Fla.1997); § 77.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The writ requires that the

and the appellee. The garnishment statute, section 77.06, Florida Statutes, provides that a garnishee

garnishment, the garnishee bank was required by section 77.-06(2), Florida Statutes (1983), to retain any

...herman 1 at the *1023 time of the service of the' writ of garnishment or any time between such service and the time of FIP’s answer, the trial court erred in ordering garnishment. We agree with this contention and reverse the order of garnishment. Section 77.06, Florida Statutes (1979), limits the liability of a garnishee to those “debts due by him to defendant ......

...�plaintiff”) and the garnishee. The judgment debtor (or “defendant”) plays a very limited role in the proceedings. Under ordinary circumstances, the writ is served on the garnishee, the garnishee answers, and the plaintiff replies. §§ 77.04; 77.061....

...If no reply is filed, judgment of garnishment may be entered on the garnishee’s answer. § 77.083. A default judgment may be awarded if the garnishee fails to answer. § 77.081. Nowhere is any provision made for service of the writ on the judgment debtor. The only notice requirement is set forth in § 77.06(2), which provides that where the garnishee is a bank, as in this case, notice of the writ and the garnishee’s answer must be served on the judgment debtor....

...been instituted. Even where the statute requires that some notice be given to the debtor, the stated time for service of notice is not linked to service of the writ on the garnishee; the 20 day time period could end before any notice is given under § 77.06(2)....

...limited applicability. Second, § 77.07(2) states that the debtor’s motion must be filed within 20 days of “service of the writ.” Under the *218 scheme of Chapter 77 there is no provision for service of the writ upon the judgment debtor; even § 77.06(2) only requires service of notice of the writ....

...Chapter 77 provides for notice of the writ of garnishment and the garnishee’s answer to be served upon the post-judgment debtor in only one circumstance: when a “bank or other financial institution authorized to accept deposits” is the garnishee. § 77.06(2), Fla.Stat. With any other type of garnishee, notice to the judgment debtor is not statutorily required. . Since the debtor in this case received notice under the provisions of § 77.06(2) we do not need to resolve the question of whether notice to a post-judgment debtor should be required under standards of due process.

...that amount in Sea Craft’s account. For this proposition, it relies on a 1971 amendment which incorporated into the garnishment law a specific provision relating to banks as garnishees. See Ch. 71-69, § 1, Laws of Fla. The provision, codified as Section 77.06(2), Florida Statutes (1979), requires a garnishee bank to report in its answer and retain any deposit, account or tangible or intangible personal property in its possession or control, if the deposit or ownership records of the bank reflect that the judgment debtor has or appears to have an ownership interest therein. We do not read Section 77.06(2) as imposing liability upon a garnishee bank for whatever sum is reflected in its records....

...Mallory, 293 So.2d 48 (1974); Sagaert v. State of Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security Unemployment Appeals Commission, 418 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Good Samaritan Hospital Association v. Simon, 370 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). More importantly, Section 77.06(2) makes absolutely no reference to liability. It merely describes a bank’s procedural responsibilities when served with a writ of garnishment. Section 77.06(1) governs the liability of garnishees....

...or ah debts due by him to the defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of the defendant in his possession or control at the time of the service of the writ or at anytime between the service and the time of his answer. Fla.Stat. § 77.06(1) (1989)....

...16 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1984) (citing no Florida law hold- ■ ing that service of writ creates lien). . We agree with the conclusion the bankruptcy court reached through its analysis of the procedures found in the garnishment statutes. Specifically, the court held: First of all, the effect of service according to Fla.Stat. § 77.06(2) is that the garnishee shall retain any money or property in the possession or control of the garnishee, subject to disposition as provided in the chapter....

...At the time of service of said Writ ... and at the time of the Answer, and in between said times, the Garnishee may be indebted to Defendant ... in the amount of $428,129.06. Garnishee in good faith has retained the sum of 428, 129.06 in accordance with Chapter 77, and primarily Section 77.06(2) and (3), Florida Statutes....

...Kulhanjian, 104 So.2d 28, 24 (Fla.1958). In the present ease, appellant’s answer did not “disclose[ ]” “the amount of his or her liability” under section 77.083, Florida Statutes, because it stated that appellant “may be indebted to Defendant.” (emphasis added). See also § 77.06(3), Fla....

they would not be considered an obstruction under § 77.6 These negotiations were successful,7 but unfortunately

...1917). The effect of service of a writ of garnishment on a garnishee is to “make garnishee liable for all debts due by [garnishee] to defendant . . . at the time of the service of the writ or at any time between the service and the time of the garnishee’s answer.” § 77.06, Fla....

...t of garnishment is served on the garnishee bank, and (2) an incomplete answer is thereafter filed which omits one of two accounts held at the bank by the defendant debtor, but which answer is later corrected by an amended answer. We hold that under Section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (1983), the garnishee bank is liable to the garnishor creditor for all monies deposited in the omitted bank account between (a) the time the writ of garnishment is served, and (b) the time the garnishee bank files an amended answer disclosing the existence of the omitted bank account....

...In order to evaluate this basic position, it is necessary to consult the applicable statutory and case law on the subject. We begin with Chapter 77 of the Florida Statutes (1983), which sets out the governing statutory law in Florida on garnishment proceedings. Section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (1983), in particular, establishes the extent of a garnishee’s liability to the garnishor for debts owed by the garnishee to the defendant debtor: “(1) Service of the writ [of garnishment] shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him to defendant ......

...oreover, undisclosed funds would plainly remain ungarnished and could be spirited away by the defendant debtor — all to the detriment of the garnishor creditor and contrary to entire purpose of the statutory scheme. It therefore follows that under Section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (1983), the garnishee is liable to the garnishor creditor (a) for all debts which the garnishee owes to the defendant debtor at the time the writ of garnishment is filed, and (b) for all such similar debts incurred...

...hee Dixie Bank between (a) the time the first writ of garnishment was served [July 15, 1983], and (b) the time the garnishee bank served an amended answer disclosing for the first time the existence of the above-stated account [April 13,1984]. Under Section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (1983), this sum represents the full extent of the garnishee Dixie Bank’s liability on this account to the garnishor creditor Chase. The final judgment under review is therefore, in all respects, Affirmed. . Section 77.06(2), Florida Statutes (1983), specifically so provides: "(2) [The garnishee] shall report in its answer and retain, subject to the provisions of s....

...ney or credits may be garnished shall retain out of the money more than double the amount which the writ of garnishment specifies as the amount plaintiff expects to recover or more than double the amount of the judgment plaintiff has recovered.” . Section 77.06(3), Florida Statutes (1983), specifically so provides: "(3) In any case where a garnishee in good faith is in doubt as to whether any indebtedness or property is required by law to be included in the garnishee’s answer or retained by...