BUCKEYE RETIREMENT CO., LLC., LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
NASSAU LAND & TRADING CO., INC. AND NASSAU COMMODITIES, INC., AND CARGO-LINK, INC., AND JOHN A. STUBBS, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DARCY ELTON STUBBS, JR., AN INDIVIDUAL, AND WILLIAM H. KAVANAUGH, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND WILLIAM H. JOHNSON, JR., AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Buckeye Retirement Company appealed the dissolution of a garnishment writ against a bank account held by William Kavanaugh and his wife as tenants by the entireties. The court affirmed the dissolution, holding that appellant failed to rebut the presumption that the account was held as tenancy by the entireties, thereby making it exempt from garnishment for an individual spouse's debt.
The court held that when property is held as a tenancy by the entireties, only creditors of both spouses jointly may attach such property; therefore, the account was not subject to garnishment for a debt owed by one spouse alone. The trial court properly dissolved the writ of garnishment, and no further analysis of alternative issues was necessary.
[1] Property held as a tenancy by the entireties is not subject to garnishment for the individual debt of only one spouse.
[2] A presumption that property is held as a tenancy by the entireties may be rebutted by evidence showing a contrary intent.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when property is held as a tenancy by the entireties, only the creditors of both the husband and wife, jointly, may attach the tenancy by the entireties property; the property is not divisible on behalf of one spouse alone, and therefore it cannot be reached to satisfy the obligation of only one spouse”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that tenancy by the entireties property is immune from garnishment for one spouse's individual debt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Buckeye Retirement Company sought to garnish a bank account held by William H. Kavanaugh and his wife. The trial court concluded that the ac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of a final order dissolving a writ of garnishment based on the conclusion that appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the bank account garnished was intended by appellee William H. Kavanaugh and his wife to be held as a tenancy by the entire-ties and that, therefore, the account was not subject to garnishment for a debt owed by Mr. Kavanaugh individually. Appellant concedes that Kavanaugh and his wife held the account as tenants by the entireties, urging that we address another issue not reached by the trial court. What appellant apparently fails to comprehend is that, having concluded that appellant had failed to prove that the account was not held by the entireties, it was unnecessary for the trial court to reach the other issue. Because appellant failed to rebut the presumption that the account was intended to be held by the entireties, the Kavanaughs were entitled to have the writ dissolved. See Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Assocs., 780 So. 2d 45, 53 (Fla.2001) (“when property is held as a tenancy by the entireties, only the creditors of both the husband and wife, jointly, may attach the tenancy by the entireties property; the property is not divisible on behalf of one spouse alone, and therefore it cannot be reached to satisfy the obligation of only one spouse”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Moreover, because this appeal is devoid of any arguable merit, we grant Kavanaugh’s motion for attorneys’ fees, made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2005). See Dunn v. Kean, 928 So. 2d 383, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). We remand to the trial court, with directions that it determine the appropriate amount of fees to be awarded for Kavanaugh’s lawyers’ services in this appeal should the parties be unable to agree.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Beal Bank v. Almand & Assocs., 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001)
- Dunn v. Kean, 928 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)