Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. [4] See, e.g., § 61.181(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1984) (alimony and child support enforcement); § 77.28, Fla....

...licy written by the garnishee, Keystone Insurance Company. *680 After discovery proceedings, a summary judgment was entered in favor of the garnishee, insurance company. The garnishee thereafter moved for assessment of attorney's fees as costs under § 77.28, Fla....

...His timely objection to the use of an affidavit to establish the amount of the fee should have been sustained. The affidavit was submitted after the summary judgment was entered and the amount was taxed as an item of costs expended. This procedure is not permissible under § 77.28 [1] when a timely objection is made....

...The cost judgment for the garnishee is therefore reversed. Since this cause is to be remanded, we have examined appellant's remaining point that default should have been entered because the garnishee's answer was improperly signed, and find it to be without merit. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] Section 77.28, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. "77.28 Garnishment; attorney's fees, costs, expenses, etc.; deposit required....

...che Bank’s motion for attorney fees and costs, which was filed in October 2010 after the district court had dissolved the writs of garnishment. Deutsche Bank contended that it was entitled to recover these expenses under Florida law (Fla. Stat. § 77.28) as a garnishee bank. In its motion, Deutsche Bank requested a total of $88,305.70 for such expenditures....

...No jury trial was required under these circumstances. Nor was the district court required to make a threshold determination that Deutsche Bank was an innocent stakeholder before awarding attorney fees and costs to the bank. Nothing in § 77.28 or any other section of Florida’s garnishment statute requires such a determination....

...ZC argues that Zelaya should instead be the one to pay. In a typical garnishment 20  Case: 12-15351 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 21 of 22 proceeding, the costs of the garnishee are taxed against the prevailing party. See Fla. Stat. § 77.28....

...Florida garnishment law, we apply a de novo standard of review. See Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.2007). In answering the certified question, we first provide an overview of the Florida garnishment statute, sections 77.01-77.28, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...(Emphasis added.) This section acts as a shield from liability for garnishees who have acted in good faith in accordance with their statutory responsibilities. Finally, Florida garnishment law provides for reimbursement of a garnishees attorneys fees, costs and expenses associated with complying with a garnishment writ. See § 77.28, Fla....

...Paz, 654 So. 2d at 1244. The court held that, without express statutory or case law authority to the contrary, garnishment was not simply another type of execution for which attorney’s fees could be awarded under section 57.115. Id. Moreover, section 77.28, Florida Statutes (2013), provides that the court must determine the garnishee’s attorney’s fees and costs, and that those can be offset against the amount owed. Thus, the statutes contemplate that the garnishee will have no liability or out-of-pocket expense due to the garnishment....

...To do so, would be to read language into the statute that is simply not there. Matthews v. First Federal Savings & Loan of Englewood, 571 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), does not alter our conclusion, as that opinion is distinguishable. First, Matthews concerns the construction and application of section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1989), not section 77.07(5). Section 77.28 relates to attorney’s fees, costs and expenses in a garnishment proceeding, providing for reimbursement to a garnishee upon rendition of a final judgment. § 77.28, Fla. Stat. In applying section 77.28, our sister court in Matthews held that the trial court’s order granting the garnishees’ motion to dismiss and dissolving the writ of garnishment was a final judgment “within the meaning of section 77.28.” Matthews, 571 So.2d at 3 ....

...as a "stake holder innocently drawn into controversy," United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Holcomb Pipe Lines, Inc., 465 F.2d 827, 828 (5th Cir.1972), we hold that the trial judge correctly refused to award the bank a reasonable attorney's fee under section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1989) and appropriately restricted its recovery in this regard to the $100 deposit provided by that section....

...Holcomb Pipe Lines, Inc., 465 F.2d 827 (5th Cir.1972); Ebsary Foundation Co. v. Barnett Bank, 569 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). On remand, we direct the trial judge to restrict appellant/garnishee's attorney's fees award to the $100 deposit provided by section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Because the writ of garnishment was improperly dissolved without empaneling a jury to try the factual dispute as to ownership of the property subject to the writ of garnishment, it was improper to make any final determination in this garnishment dispute. See § 77.28, Fla....

...e amount shall be subject to offset by the garnishee against the defendant whose property or debt owing is being garnished.” [e.s.]). Even more important, the only statute authorizing an award of attorney’s fees in these garnishment proceedings, section 77.28, Florida Statutes (2001), does not authorize an award for a claimant who is not the garnishee....

...Paz, 654 So. 2d at 1244. The court held that, without express statutory or case law authority to the contrary, garnishment was not simply another type of execution for which attorney’s fees could be awarded under section 57.115. Id. Moreover, section 77.28, Florida Statutes (2013), provides that the court must determine the garnishee’s attorney’s fees and costs, and that those can be offset against the amount owed. Thus, the statutes contemplate that the garnishee will have no liability or out-of-pocket expense due to the garnishment....

...Since there is no statute or agreement which allowed for fees to be awarded in this case, it was error for the trial court to make such an award. Reversed. . Chapter 77 does, however, allow the garnishee to recover a reasonable attorneys’ fee from the plaintiff. Under section 77.28, the plaintiff must deposit $100 in the court registry before applying for a writ of garnishment in order to help offset the garnishee's costs and fees which will be incurred as a result of the writ.

...garnishment was appropriate in view of the fact that these parties entered into a settlement agreement, so that as between them there was no prevailing party. The bank, on the other hand, was merely a stakeholder and was entitled under the statute, Section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1981), to be reimbursed for the total amount expended as attorney’s fees....

attorney's fees, and taxes the same as costs. Section 77.28. As clearly stated in the statute, the $10 deposit

...Considering the cost of the deposition and the purpose served, we find no abuse of discretion. See Lockwood v. Test, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 142 . Upon this Court’s own motion it has been noted that this record does not reflect a final judgment in the garnishment proceeding. Therefore, the order appealed must be reversed. Section 77.28, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

depositors are free to contract as they wish. Section 77.28, Florida Statutes, does provide that the court

absolutely entitled to such an award under Section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: “On

...a New *328 York trust, of which Felice Scherer was the beneficiary. Cowan successfully attacked the subject matter jurisdiction of the Florida court, resulting in dismissal of the cause. Cowan then sought attorney’s fees against Robert pursuant to section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court’s denial thereof is the subject of this cross appeal. Section 77.28 provides, in pertinent part: On rendering final judgment the Court shall determine Garnishee’s costs and expenses, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.......

...It is interlocutory in that the judicial labors obviously have yet to come at end, and it is therefore not yet subject to appeal. In the second order, the court entered a final judgment as to attorney’s fees against the garnishor for services rendered by the garnishee’s attorney up to and including the above order. Section 77.28, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides, in part: * * * * * * “ * * * Upon the rendering of a final judgment in any such proceeding in which a writ of garnishment shall be issued, the court shall determine a sum that should be awarded to...

...Bryan, 427 So.2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Florida National Bank of Coral Gables v. Rosen, 353 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Buyer Finance Corporation v. Oliveros, 196 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). This cause is remanded with directions to award attorney's fees pursuant to Section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion of the garnishee, International Game Technology, Inc., for attorney’s fees against Windsor-Thomas Group, Inc., with the exception that the garnishee may recover on remand the $100 deposited pursuant to section 77.28, Florida Statutes (1997)....

...The prior appeal was taken by the plaintiffs, the judgment creditors, after the garnishees obtained an order granting their motion to dismiss and dissolving the writ of garnishment. The garnishees filed with this court a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to section. 77.28, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...fees in favor of the garnishees and against the plaintiffs. The language in this court’s order making the grant of entitlement to attorney’s fees dependent upon the final judgment was simply an inappropriate reference to the literal language of section 77.28....

...Obviously, it was a final decision appealable as a final judgment. Accordingly, we strike from our order the words “depending on the final judgment.” We do so because we hold that the order dissolving the writ of garnishment was a final judgment within the meaning of section 77.28....