Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...in the Second National Bank of North Miami Beach. Burton asserted in defense that $1,500 of that amount [2] belonged not to him, but to his present wife, Felice, and Felice duly filed a claim to that effect in the garnishment proceeding pursuant to Section 77.16(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...On January 14, 1983 Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty), allegedly perfected a security interest in the settlement agreement by filing a UCC financing statement with the Office of the Secretary of the State in Tallahassee, Florida. Subsequently, in compliance with Section 77.16(1) of the Florida Statutes, Ohio Casualty filed an affidavit in which they claim that the debt in the case at bar is due to them....

...Teresa may enforce her judgment against the fund if she properly proceeds to obtain a writ of garnishment under chapter 77, Florida Statutes. In such event Judith will be able to assert her rights to the fund by becoming a party to the garnishment action under § 77.16, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...ant to the provisions of Ch. 77, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. Within the time prescribed by the writ, Allstate answered and admitted there was an indebtedness payable to Collie and his attorney in the personal injury action. Pursuant to the authority found in § 77.16, Fla....

...he insurance carrier of the defendant therein], and the funds it held for the account of Collie were subject to garnishment by the appellee, Air Control. [1] Point III was the right of the appellant to have a jury trial pursuant to the provisions of § 77.16, Fla....

...617; Poole v. The Travelers Insurance Company, 130 Fla. 806, 179 So. 138] Air Control could institute garnishment proceeding against Allstate, being subrogated to Collie's right against Allstate by the very nature of said garnishment proceeding. [2] "§ 77.16, Fla....

...This chapter provides for notice to be given to such a third party claimant who is, in turn, afforded the opportunity to assert his interest by filing an affidavit to that effect. He is then entitled to a hearing to determine the validity and extent of his interest. § 77.16, Fla....

...ts. The Claim of Exemption, and Reply to Claim of Exemption show that there are disputed issues as to these accounts. The Affidavits of third parties Tonya Kearney and Clayton Kear-ney would require a trial as to the disputed claims pursuant to Sec. 77.16, F.S....

...� Regions argues that it complied with the statute, that all of the other interest holders had actual notice of the garnishment and almost all of them filed affidavits to timely assert their interests, in accord with their statutory obligation. F.S. § 77.16....

...the garnishee’s answer. The circuit court also noted that the statutes contemplate that other persons who claim an ownership interest in the property in the hands of the garnishee can assert their *1247 claim by filing an affidavit pursuant to Ch. 77.16, Fla....

...Bing Kearney moved to dissolve for failure to comply with statutory procedures. The supporting affidavit of Clayton Kearney asserts that the funds in the accounts belong only to Clayton Kearney. The disputed issue of ownership of the funds in the accounts is determined at trial. Ch. 77.16, Fla....

...Before a final judgment authorizing the judgment creditor to reach the funds held by the garnishee is entered, the interests of the joint depositor in the funds should be conclusively determined and the applicable law applied thereto. Antuna v. Dawson, 459 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Ch. 77.16, Fla....

...Gigliotti tried to enter the garnishment case as an intervenor, claiming standing only as an assignee of SCI, the judgment debtor, instead of as an unpaid subcontractor on Norstar's construction project. As an assignee, it merely stood in the shoes of SCI with no greater rights to the money than SCI. Section 77.16, Florida Statutes (1997), provides that a claimant to funds that may be garnisheed, such as Gigliotti, is required to file an affidavit asserting that a certain amount of the funds in the hands of the garnishee belongs to it....

...We do not absolve Gigliotti of its responsibility to properly comply with the statutory requirements. Its failure to do so contributed to the procedural quagmire confronting the trial judge. Had its various amended motions to intervene instead been filed in compliance with section 77.16's affidavit requirement, unnecessary waste of judicial labor would have been avoided. Had the trial court permitted Gigliotti an opportunity to comply with section 77.16, or had Gigliotti complied with the statute on its own, its contention that it was entitled to the funds held by the garnishee, Norstar, would have been resolved in a more efficient manner as contemplated by the garnishment statutes....

...Bank of America set aside funds from that account, because the name on the account read “AMY KODSI POA JOSEPH KODSI ITF JOSEPH KODSI.” Shortly thereafter, Amy revoked the power-of-attorney and removed Joseph as a beneficiary of the account. Pursuant to section 77.16, Florida Statutes (2013), Amy filed an affidavit alleging the funds in the 8070 account had been improperly garnished because they belonged to her and not her husband....

...A judgment creditor may serve such a writ of garnishment on a garnishee, such as a bank. See § 77.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). If a third party claims the property belongs to him, rather than the judgment debtor, he can file an affidavit to this effect. See § 77.16(1), Fla....

...Because he was not disclosed at the outset, Defendant was not required to provide him with notice. Therefore, there can be no finding of improper notice. Further, while Mr. Smart did not have standing to petition for the dissolution of the writ, Fla. Stat. § 77.16 permits him to file an affidavit claiming ownership to the funds in question....

belongs to the third party and not the debtor. See § 77.16, Fla. Stat. (2001). Either method requires a trial

property held by Wells Fargo as garnishee, section 77.16 would have required them to provide an affidavit

...the transaction with Tutt — are related. . Further, Hotel 71 participated in joint discovery in that action, including scheduling a mutually convenient date with Tutt and Carbon Capital for Tutt’s deposition, and filing an affidavit, pursuant to section 77.16(1), Florida Statutes (2009), claiming an interest in the funds received by Tutt from Mitchell....

...from the 2001 security agreement. The circuit court held a hearing on the motions to intervene and to determine priority of claims. At the beginning of the hearing, Charlotte Development said that it was not waiving any of its "rights under Statute 77.16," which governs "[c]laims by third persons to garnished property." See § 77.16, Fla....

...At the end of the interchange, the court stated, "[N]o one has traced [the money] back to a collateral that [Charlotte Development has] a secured interest [in]." At this point, over one hour after the hearing began, Charlotte Development reminded the court that it did not "waive any rights under Florida Statute 77.16" and explained in the "interest of judicial economy [it] wanted to resolve this today." But then the attorney said that he had not waived a jury and that if GE Capital "would like to come back for a jury trial, if [the court] need[s] more infor...

...rior to that of Charlotte Development. *693 We agree with the circuit judge that Charlotte Development waived its right to a jury trial. At the beginning of the hearing, Charlotte Development's attorney obliquely mentioned his client's "rights under section 77.16," but said nothing about a jury trial, which would have been an unusual request in a garnishment proceeding involving $10,000. Both parties jumped at the court's invitation to expeditiously resolve the case on the merits. After an hour, when Charlotte Development perceived that its case was proceeding poorly, it fell back on section 77.16 to extricate itself from an unfavorable decision. A party seeking a jury trial cannot so dip its toe into a non-jury trial and test the judicial waters without waiving the right to have a jury decide the case. Section 77.16(1) contemplates that a jury may be waived....

...the writ of garnishment belonged solely to it and not to the judgment debtor. When the garnishor demands a jury on this issue, the statutes require the judge to empanel a jury to try the issue of ownership of the property sought to be garnished. See § 77.16(1), Fla....

...Summary of the Arguments In its summary judgment motion, Dahua makes the following three arguments: (1) Dahua is a separate entity from the Judgment Debtors, (2) Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(a)'s five (5) year statute of limitation bars this action, and (3) Fla. Stat. § 77.07(2) and Fla. Stat. § 77.16(1) prohibit the garnishment of personal property or monies owed *1376 to Dahua by the Garnishees....

...er the entry of the underlying judgment, which was entered on July 31, 2003. [D.E. 54]. Third, Dahua argues that, based on Florida law, the writs of garnishment cannot apply to any debts owed by the Garnishees to Dahua. See Fla. Stat. §§ 77.07(2), 77.16(1)....

...ved." Dahua argues that since it was not part of the original judgment, and both Garnishees state that they owe money only to Dahua and not the Judgment Debtors, the writs of garnishment should be dissolved. [D.E. 54]. Dahua also cites to Fla. Stat. § 77.16(1), which provides that if "any person other than defendant claims that the debt due by a garnishee is due to that person not to the defendant, or that the property in the hands or possession of any garnishee is that person's property and sh...

...termine the right of property between the claimant and plaintiff unless [a] jury is waived." Here again, Dahua and the Garnishees both suggest that all monies owed are owed to Dahua and not the Judgement Debtors. Id. Despite the fact that Fla. Stat. § 77.16(1) suggests that a jury trial is required, Dahua and the Garnishees argue that since "Florida Garnishment statutes are still subject to all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (including Rule 56)," when there are no genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment is appropriate. [D.E. 54]; see e.g. Tortuga Marine Salvage Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 171 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3 DCA 1965) (finding that Fla. Stat. § 77.16 "does not vitiate all other rules applicable to the determination of claims and if the facts of a particular case warrant, summary ruling, on the question of title to the garnished property, is appropriate")....

...67, 72]. Upon review of both documents, it is clear that Dahua and Milliken disagree, at a minimum on the central issue herein as to whether the evidence shows that Dahua is the alter-ego of Weihai Haima. Further, Dahua's own citation to Fla. Stat. § 77.16(1), suggests that a jury be impaneled to "determine the right of property between the claimant and plaintiff," and, therefore, goes against a grant of summary judgment....

...Villamorey timely appealed the trial court’s discovery order, which we stayed during the pendency of this appeal. II. ANALYSIS8 Villamorey asserts that, because it has not filed an affidavit attesting to its ownership of the Villamorey account at Bank pursuant to section 77.16(1) of the Florida Statutes (2017),9 it is merely in a defensive posture in the garnishment 7 The trial court’s order was without prejudice to Villamorey making specific objections to any of BDT’s discovery requests....

...6 action, is not a true party to the garnishment action, and is, therefore, not subject to BDT’s discovery. We disagree. Villamorey’s assertion that only persons who have filed an affidavit under section 77.16(1) are actual parties to a garnishment proceeding misreads the relevant statutory construct of Chapter 77....

...disclosed by the garnishee’s answer. § 77.07(2). The statutes contemplate that other persons who claim an ownership interest . . . in property in . . . possession of the garnishee, may assert such claim by filing an affidavit under the provisions of section 77.16.”). If any person other than defendant claims that ....

...the property in the . . . possession of any garnishee is that person’s property and shall make an affidavit to the effect, the court shall impanel a jury to determine the right of property between the claimant and plaintiff unless a jury is waived. § 77.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). 7  Moreover, irrespective of which statutory procedure is invoked – section 77.07(2) or 77.16(1) – the result is the same: the person, by affirmatively seeking to dissolve the writ, has assented to the court’s jurisdiction over it and is a party to the garnishment proceedings....

...further pointed out that paragraph (9) of 12E-1.028 provides that when *557 a levy is against an obligor's jointly owned assets, DOR must provide the same notice and opportunity for a hearing to a joint owner as DOR provides to the obligor. Green Sr. also relied on cases arising under Chapter 77.16, Florida Statutes, which provides a procedure for resolution of third-party claims to property held by a garnishee....

...account by filing an unsworn petition in the current 409 proceeding. DOR's position on appeal is that Green Sr. does not qualify as a "joint owner" of the account entitled to press his claim under the rule. DOR posits that Green Sr.'s remedy lies in Section 77.16, Florida Statutes; however, because Green Sr. has never filed the affidavit required under that statute, he cannot pursue chapter 77 relief either. There is no doubt that Green Sr. has a right of access to the courts to assert that the monies in the garnished bank account are his. Section 77.16, Florida Statutes, is designed for that purpose....

...ty for a hearing to joint owners. DOR could only meaningfully comply with that requirement if it could determine a possible claim of ownership from the account documents. For anyone not identified in bank records as a joint owner, the remedy lies in section 77.16. We see no statutory or rule impediment to a hearing conducted in a chapter 409 garnishment proceeding to resolve third-party claims of ownership of funds in an account held by a child support obligor, so long as the requirements of section 77.16 are met....

...Farm Credit answered both writs to the effect that it was indebted to Double H in the amount of $14,199.08, and that there was also a contingent liability of $33,892.50 arising out of Double H’s interest in a credit cooperative. Evans filed a motion to consolidate on January 8, 1997 pursuant to section 77.16, Florida Statutes, in which he gave notice to all parties and asserted his claim was superior because he had recorded his underlying judgment first. He requested either consolidation or proceedings under section 77.16 for dispute resolution between judgment creditors, however, the motion to consolidate was never brought to hearing....

...Bank of America set aside funds from that account, because the name on the account read “AMY KODSI POA JOSEPH KODSI ITF JOSEPH KODSI.” Shortly thereafter, Amy revoked the power-of-attorney and removed Joseph as a beneficiary of the account. Pursuant to section 77.16, Florida Statutes (2013), Amy filed an affidavit alleging the funds in the 8070 account had been improperly garnished because they belonged to her and not her husband....

...A judgment creditor may serve such a writ of garnishment on a garnishee, such as a bank. See § 77.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). If a third party claims the property belongs to him, rather than the judgment debtor, he can file an affidavit to this effect. See § 77.16(1), Fla. Stat....

...Ormond Beach First National Bank v. Montgomery Roof Co., 189 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So.2d 813 (Fla.1967). The question is, therefore, whether a party who files a claim as an intervenor in a garnishment proceeding pursuant to section 77.16, Florida Statutes (1983), is seeking affirmative relief....

...debtor challenging the truth of the allegations in the creditor’s petition for the writ, see § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (2001); or (2) on an affidavit of a third party claiming the garnished property belongs to the third party and not the debt- or. See § 77.16, Fla. Stat. (2001). Either method requires a trial of the issues. §§ 77.07, 77.16....

...1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991)) (“[A] litigant must assert his or her own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest a claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”). Accordingly, the writ of garnishment could not be dissolved under section 77.16....

in the garnishment action filed pursuant to Section 77.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., since that action

...Instead, Sosa raised a claim as to ownership of the funds in the account to be garnished. Though he incorrectly filed the motion pursuant to section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, it is clear from the substance of the motion that Sosa was attempting to assert a claim under section 77.16, Florida Statutes....

...§ 77.07(2). The statutes contemplate that other persons who claim an ownership interest in the debt due by the garnishee, or in property in the hands or possession of the garnishee, may assert such claim by filing an affidavit under the provisions of section 77.16....

...The circuit court, in affirming the county court’s denial of the motion to dissolve the writ, did not violate a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995). Petitioner could have made a claim under the procedure of § 77.16 but did not....

belongs to the third party and not the debtor. See § 77.16, Fla. Stat. (2001). Either method requires a trial

third party and not the debtor. See § 77.16, Fla. Stat. (2001). Either method requires a trial

...But the effect of the ruling was to deny London’s claim to a priority interest in the garnished funds. We begin our discussion with the observation that in the briefs before this court, and presumably in the lower court as well, neither party discussed the ramifications of section 77.16, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...He claims that under Fla.Stat. §§ 77.07 and 77.-16, he was entitled to a trial on the ownership of those accounts prior to the garnishment. The Court agrees. Chapter 77 of the Florida Statutes governs garnishment proceedings in Florida. The dispositive provision is § 77.16(1), which provides that: (1) If any person other than defendant claims that the debt due by a garnishee is due to him and not to defendant, or that the property in the hands or possession of any garnishee is his property and shall make an affidavit to the effect, the court shall impanel a jury to determine the right of property between the claimant and plaintiff unless a jury is waived. Fla.Stat. § 77.16(1) (West 1987) (emphasis added)....

...3d DCA 1965) (“where a claimant asserts a right to garnished property it is the duty of the court to try the controversy and determine the rights of the parties, and, in Florida, such trial may be had by jury”). In this case, Mildred L. Gass, Gass’ mother, fully complied with Fla.Stat. § 77.16(1)....

...Prior to the hearing on Gass’ timely motion to dissolve the writ, she submitted an affida *434 vit to the effect that the five certificate of deposit accounts at issue were her property and not her son’s. Once that affidavit was filed, the court was obligated under Fla.Stat. § 77.16(1) to hold a trial on the matter, by jury unless a jury is waived....

against Bender’s husband in a certain amount. Section 77.16 expressly applies to “[c]laims by third persons

...Threlkeld instituted the litigation. We do not dispute the fact that where a claimant asserts a right to garnished property it is the duty of the court to try the controversy and determine the rights of the parties, and, in Florida, such trial may be had by jury. § 77.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...Ryan have an interest in that account. These third parties were implead-ed nine months ago. They have answered, claiming ownership of one-half of the funds in the account. Garnishment in aid of a bankruptcy judgment is governed by local law. B.R. 769. The applicable state statute, § 77.16, Florida Statutes, provides that if a third party claims garnished funds by affidavit (which was done in this instance, C.P.No....

...y L. Wormley.” Unibay sent a notice of garnishment to Mrs. Wormley at her residence and another to her in care of appellant, her attorney. However, Mrs. Wormley did not file an affidavit and claim in the pending garnishment proceedings pursuant to Section 77.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion. . Appellant Kearney filed an appeal from that judgment in Kearney v. Unibay Company, Case No. 83-2045. Kearney dismissed that case at oral argument. . We note that an attorney, who has now withdrawn, filed an affidavit and claim pursuant to Section 77.16(3), Florida Statutes (1983), after entry of final judgment....

...Thereafter, a writ of garnishment was issued to Crow, Pope and Land of Florida, Inc. alleging that Crow owed Central Florida sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment. In an amended answer to the garnishment writ Pope admitted the indebtedness. The ap-pellee, Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company, filed a claim pursuant to Section 77.16 of the Florida Statutes, alleging that it had a superior claim to the funds held by Crow....

substitute plaintiff and the intervenor/garnishor. See § 77.16, Fla. Stat. (1995); Antuna v. Dawson, 459 So.2d

...nies that it believed to be indebted to the Seller. Both Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield (“BCBS”) answered multiple writs of garnishment, each time stating that they were indebted to the Seller. Physicians Care filed an affidavit under section 77.16, Florida Statutes, claiming ownership of the funds subject to the writs of garnishment. Shortly thereafter, Physicians Care moved to dissolve the writs of garnishment, alleging that the insurance remittances were its property, as assign...

...f C & S Plumbing of Florida, Inc. The trial court granted both motions of C & S Plumbing of Florida, Inc., and dissolved the writs in question based on the court’s conclusion that they were prejudgment garnishments. Appellant contends that Section 77.16(1), Florida Statutes (1979) requires of C & S Plumbing of Florida, Inc....

...r two reasons. First, the writs named C & S Plumbing of Florida, Inc. as the defendant. Therefore,' C & S Plumbing of Florida, Inc. cannot be a person other than the defendant. Second, in light of several cases decided since the enactment of Section 77.16(1) which have held prejudgment garnishment statutes unconstitutional, 1 we believe the aforementioned statute must be given a narrow construction....

...The statute at issue undoubtedly contemplates a situation where the writ provides for the garnishment of a judgment debtor’s property and a third unrelated entity also has an interest in that property. In that event, the unrelated entity would have to file an affidavit pursuant to the statute. Since Section 77.16(1) is not at issue, we express no opinion as to its constitutionality.