Florida Statute 77.7 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 77
GARNISHMENT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 77.07

77.07 Dissolution of writ.—

(1) The defendant, by motion, may obtain the dissolution of a writ of garnishment, unless the petitioner proves the grounds upon which the writ was issued and unless, in the case of a prejudgment writ, there is a reasonable probability that the final judgment in the underlying action will be rendered in his or her favor. The court shall set down such motion for an immediate hearing. If the writ is dissolved, the action then shall proceed as if no writ had been issued.

(2) The defendant and any other person having an ownership interest in the property, as disclosed by the garnishee’s answer, shall file and serve a motion to dissolve the garnishment within 20 days after the date indicated in the certificate of service on the defendant and such other person of the plaintiff’s notice required by s. 77.055, stating that any allegation in plaintiff’s motion for writ is untrue. On such motion this issue shall be tried, and if the allegation in plaintiff’s motion which is denied is not proved to be true, the garnishment shall be dissolved. Failure of the defendant or other interested person to timely file and serve the motion to dissolve within such time limitation shall result in the striking of the motion as an unauthorized nullity by the court, and the proceedings shall be in a default posture as to the party involved.

(3) If the motion denies the debt demanded before judgment, the judge may require pleadings on motion of either party on the debt demanded to be filed in such time as he or she fixes.

(4) The issue, if any, raised by the pleadings shall be tried at the same time as the issue, if any, made by defendant’s motion to plaintiff’s motion.

(5) If the plaintiff fails to file a dismissal or motion for final judgment within 6 months after filing the writ of garnishment, the writ shall automatically be dissolved and the garnishee shall be discharged from further liability under the writ. The plaintiff has the right to extend the writ for an additional 6 months by serving the garnishee and the defendant a notice of extension and filing in the underlying proceeding a certification of such service.

History.—s. 1, ch. 7353, 1917; RGS 3454; CGL 5307; s. 27, ch. 67-254; s. 2, ch. 83-97; s. 3, ch. 85-272; s. 389, ch. 95-147; s. 16, ch. 2005-241.

F.S. 77.07 on Google Scholar

F.S. 77.07 on CourtListener

Amendments to 77.07

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 77.07

Total Results: 44

Malowney v. Federal Collection Deposit Group

193 F.3d 1342, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 27985, 1999 WL 982407

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 29, 1999 | Docket: 395547

Cited 281 times | Published

debtor that he may move to dissolve the writ under § 77.07(2) of the Florida Code, and that he may have exemptions

Keith Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, (FARC)

771 F.3d 713

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 16, 2014 | Docket: 1451325

Cited 107 times | Published

ownership interest in the” asset); Fla. Stat. § 77.07(2) (permitting “any other person having an ownership

Consolidated Gas Company of Florida, Inc. v. City Gas Company of Florida, a Florida Corporation

912 F.2d 1262, 118 P.U.R.4th 287, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 16430, 1990 WL 125506

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 19, 1990 | Docket: 998055

Cited 14 times | Published

expressly permit such ratemaking, see Miss.Code Ann. § 77-7-1 et seq. (1972 & Supp.1984). Rather, that statute

Johnson v. Dawson

257 So. 2d 282

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 1972 | Docket: 413233

Cited 12 times | Published

the tort litigation were considered as evidence. § 77.07, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The Circuit Court found that

Sundie v. Lindsay

166 So. 2d 152

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 14, 1964 | Docket: 1684261

Cited 12 times | Published

would not be recoverable. 9 Fla.Jur., Damages § 77. [7] Note 4, supra; Restatement, Contracts § 329

Zivitz v. Zivitz

16 So. 3d 841, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 5870, 2009 WL 1424067

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 2009 | Docket: 1640738

Cited 9 times | Published

claim. Robert next argues that pursuant to section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, the only effect of the

Reeves v. Don L. Tullis & Associates

305 So. 2d 813, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14783

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 1975 | Docket: 1512345

Cited 9 times | Published

allegations of the answer as plaintiff may desire. F.S. § 77.07 provides for a trial of the issues made by the

Ray Lein Const., Inc. v. Wainwright

346 So. 2d 1029

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 26, 1977 | Docket: 1734273

Cited 8 times | Published

constitutional safeguards and points specifically to Section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, which provides for an

Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates

710 So. 2d 608, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 6531, 1998 WL 135147

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1998 | Docket: 1731550

Cited 7 times | Published

Estate, 347 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). [11] § 77.07(2), Fla. Stat.; Beardsley v. Admiral Insurance

Barbouti v. Lysandrou

559 So. 2d 648, 1990 WL 26684

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1990 | Docket: 2517865

Cited 7 times | Published

reasonable probability of success on the merits. § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (1989); see Quick v. Leatherman, 96

Regions Bank v. Hyman

91 F. Supp. 3d 1234, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28654, 2015 WL 1033915

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 7, 2015 | Docket: 64300911

Cited 6 times | Published

motion to dissolve the writs, in accord with F.S. § 77.07(2). 2. Discussion The Court notes that, as to Defendant

Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. v. Value Seafood, Inc.

121 So. 3d 83, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14154, 2013 WL 4734574

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 4, 2013 | Docket: 60234513

Cited 6 times | Published

Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment pursuant to section 77.07(5), Florida Statutes (2012), in which they alleged

Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A.

197 So. 3d 137, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11413, 2016 WL 4016280

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 27, 2016 | Docket: 60256208

Cited 5 times | Published

final judgment within 6 months, as required by section 77.07(5), Florida Statutes (2012). Akerman, 121 So

Bunton v. First National Bank of Tampa

394 F. Supp. 793

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 1975 | Docket: 880728

Cited 5 times | Published

the writ. The Court observes that Fla.Stat.Ann. § 77.07 does provide for a prompt hearing in which the

Sokolsky v. Kuhn

386 So. 2d 806

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1980 | Docket: 477534

Cited 4 times | Published

to this issue, under its authority pursuant to § 77.07 and § 77.083, Florida Statutes. Appellant has also

Martinez v. Republic of Cuba

708 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49169, 2010 WL 1707649

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 28, 2010 | Docket: 2404404

Cited 3 times | Published

specific time period or risk being in default, § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (2005). [3] The Eleventh Circuit Court

Betty v. State

7 So. 3d 586, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1948, 2009 WL 605409

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 11, 2009 | Docket: 1225148

Cited 3 times | Published

error. [2] This subsection has been renumbered. § 77.7.04(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2008).

Windsor-Thomas Group, Inc. v. Parker

782 So. 2d 478, 2001 WL 282804

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 23, 2001 | Docket: 456472

Cited 3 times | Published

obtaining a dissolution of the writ of garnishment. Section 77.07(1), Florida Statutes (1997), permits a defendant

USAmeriBank v. Klepal

100 So. 3d 56, 2011 WL 4809107, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16156

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 12, 2011 | Docket: 60225888

Cited 2 times | Published

appropriate disposition would be to dissolve the writ. § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (2010); see Malowney v. Fed. Collection

BNP PARIBAS v. Wynne

944 So. 2d 1004, 2005 WL 53262

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 12, 2005 | Docket: 1156004

Cited 2 times | Published

pre-judgment writ may do so by motion. § 77.07(1), Fla. Stat.[3] Under section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes,[4] the

Beardsley v. Admiral Ins. Co.

647 So. 2d 327, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12384, 1994 WL 706229

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 1994 | Docket: 437245

Cited 2 times | Published

issue which must be set for trial. See generally § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (1993). In construing another subdivision

Harborside Suites, LLC v. Rosen

261 So. 3d 664

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2018 | Docket: 64700816

Cited 1 times | Published

allegations in the creditor's petition for the writ, see § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (2001); or (2) on an affidavit of a

Villamorey, S.A. v. Bdt Investments, Inc.

245 So. 3d 909

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 18, 2018 | Docket: 6366301

Cited 1 times | Published

motion to dissolve BDT’s writ pursuant to section 77.07(2) of the Florida Statutes (2017).6 In this

Milliken & Co. v. HAIMA GROUP CORP.

654 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72855, 2009 WL 2567025

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 18, 2009 | Docket: 2381430

Cited 1 times | Published

limitation bars this action, and (3) Fla. Stat. § 77.07(2) and Fla. Stat. § 77.16(1) prohibit the garnishment

Keith Stansell v. UBS Financial Services, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 23, 2022 | Docket: 64914712

Published

Florida garnishment law and the TRIA. See Fla. Stat. § 77.07(2) (on a mo- tion to dissolve a writ of garnishment

DIANE BENDER v. JACK SHATZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2020 | Docket: 17350910

Published

interest in garnished property pursuant to section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes (2019), the burden of proof

Harborside Suites, LLC v. Rosen

261 So. 3d 664

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2018 | Docket: 64700817

Published

allegations in the creditor's petition for the writ, see § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (2001); or (2) on an affidavit of a

Harborside Suites v. Rosen

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2018 | Docket: 8221186

Published

creditor's petition for the writ, see § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (2001); or (2) on an affidavit

Martinez v. golisting.com

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2017 | Docket: 6229129

Published

extend the express terms of the version of section 77.07(5) in effect in 2012 because to do so would

Merriman Investments, LLC v. Ujowundu

123 So. 3d 1191, 2013 WL 5813970, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17216

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 30, 2013 | Docket: 60234899

Published

allegations in the creditor’s petition for the writ, see § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (2001); or (2) on an affidavit of a

Sosa v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.

969 So. 2d 540, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 18737, 2007 WL 4179717

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 28, 2007 | Docket: 64853148

Published

he incorrectly filed the motion pursuant to section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, it is clear from the substance

Rudd v. First Union National Bank

761 So. 2d 1189, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8018, 2000 WL 827076

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2000 | Docket: 64798518

Published

Inc., 720 So.2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); § 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The defendant shall file

Doug Sears Consulting, Inc. v. ATS Services, Inc.

752 So. 2d 668, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 926, 2000 WL 125955

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 2000 | Docket: 64795570

Published

Garnishment (Motion to Dissolve) pursuant to section 77.07, Florida Statutes (1997). A hearing on the Motion

Malowney v. Hodges

193 F.3d 1342

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Oct 29, 1999 | Docket: 395546

Published

he may move to dissolve the writ under section § 77.07(2) of the Florida Code, and that he may have exemptions

Cadle Co. v. G & G Associates

741 So. 2d 1257, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13198, 1999 WL 816974

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 1999 | Docket: 64791259

Published

effect” a motion to dissolve filed pursuant to section 77.07, Florida Statutes (1997). Grieco’s motion was

Republic National Bank of Miami v. Royal Floral Distributors, Inc.

726 So. 2d 397, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1436, 1999 WL 72188

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 17, 1999 | Docket: 64786244

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); Pleasant Valley Farms & Morey Condensery Co

Navon, Kopelman & O'Donnell, P.A. v. Synnex Information Technologies, Inc.

720 So. 2d 1167, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15009, 1998 WL 821787

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 25, 1998 | Docket: 64784395

Published

property, as disclosed by the garnishee’s answer. § 77.07(2). The statutes contemplate that other persons

Clarendon Group, Ltd. v. Lahus II, Inc.

601 So. 2d 630, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7726, 1992 WL 147154

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1992 | Docket: 64668673

Published

Cosentino v. Elson, 263 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); § 77.07, Fla.Stat. (1991).

Cruz v. State Wide Collection Corp.

516 So. 2d 117, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2905, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11601, 1987 WL 2698

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 1987 | Docket: 64631249

Published

judgment of garnishment without such a hearing. See § 77.07(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). We, accordingly, reverse

Matthews v. Wood

485 So. 2d 472, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 703, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6949

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1986 | Docket: 64618187

Published

the provision for dissolution of the writ, section 77.07(1) now provides: The defendant, by motion, may

International Travel Card, Inc. v. R. C. Hasler, Inc.

411 So. 2d 215, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19150

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1982 | Docket: 64588609

Published

it was not served within the time required by § 77.-07(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Having summarily

Bowling v. Rocket Wheels Industries, Inc.

344 So. 2d 1300, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15504

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 20, 1977 | Docket: 64558203

Published

At the outset, however, we point out that Section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes (1974), does provide that:

Dynatronics, Inc. v. Knorr

247 So. 2d 70, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6603

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1971 | Docket: 64519966

Published

the garnishment and release the property.” F. S. § 77.07, F.S.A. provides for dissolution of garnishment

Bertman v. Kurtell & Co.

205 So. 2d 685, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4234

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 1967 | Docket: 64503602

Published

satisfy the judgment described in the affidavit.” Section 77.07, in chapter 77, Fla.Stat., F. S.A., relating