STATE OF FLORIDA (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) (PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICE BUREAU), APPELLANT,
v.
GORDON BROTHERS CONCRETE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JAMES B. PETERSON, 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.
This case addresses whether sovereign immunity protects the state from garnishment proceedings. The court holds that Florida, as a sovereign entity, is protected by sovereign immunity in garnishment actions and has not waived that protection through the garnishment statute.
The state is protected by sovereign immunity in garnishment proceedings and has not waived that protection. The garnishment statute does not provide clear and unequivocal statutory authority for a waiver of sovereign immunity.
[1] A state is protected by sovereign immunity from garnishment proceedings unless it has expressly waived that immunity.
[2] Waivers of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal and cannot be inferred or implied from statutes.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well established that a state may not be sued absent its consent by a specific waiver of its cloak of sovereign immunity.”
Establishes the foundational principle that sovereign immunity protects states from suit unless explicitly waived.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGordon Brothers Concrete, Inc. held a valid judgment against James B. Peterson. Gordon Brothers sought to garnish funds owed by the State of Florida t…
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
[*1157] BOARDMAN, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment ordering payment by appellant/garnishee State of Florida to appellee/plaintiff Gordon Brothers Concrete, Inc. (appellee). Ap-pellee holds a valid judgment against James B. Peterson a party to whom the state is indebted. A writ of garnishment was issued against the state, and the state moved to dismiss on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The sole issue for our determination is whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity is applicable to a garnishment proceeding. We hold that the state is protected in this instance by sovereign immunity and that it has not waived that protection.
It is well established that a state may not be sued absent its consent by a specific waiver of its cloak of sovereign immunity. See, e. g., State Road Department v. Tharp, 146 Fla. 745, 1 So. 2d 868 (1941); Department of Natural Resources v. Circuit Court, 317 So. 2d 772 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), aff’d 339 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1976). It is clear to us that garnishment proceedings are within the scope of actions or suits from which a state is immunized. We do not believe that a reasonable distinction can be reached between the state being sued as a party defendant and the state being joined as garnishee. See Weinstein, Bronfin & Heller v. LeBlanc, 249 La. 936, 192 So. 2d 130 (1966). See generally Duval County v. Charleston Lumber & Mfg. Co., 45 Fla. 256, 33 So. 531 (1903). Although Article X, Section 13 of the Florida Constitution provides that the legislature may waive the state’s immunity from suit “the courts have consistently held that statutes purporting to waive the sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal [and that] [w]aiver will not be reached as a product of inference or implication.” Spangler v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 106 So. 2d 421, 424 (Fla.1958).
The garnishment statute cannot be said to provide statutory. authority for a waiver of sovereign immunity in garnishment proceedings.
77.01 Right to garnishment. — Every person who has sued to recover a debt or has recovered judgment in any court against any person, natural or corporate, has a right to a writ of garnishment, in the manner hereinafter provided, to subject any debt due to defendant by a third person, and any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in the possession or control of a 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.
Although the Florida courts have not previously treated the question of a state’s amenability to garnishment the Supreme Court of Florida has determined that a county is protected from such a proceeding. Charleston Lumber & Mfg. Co., supra. The rationale supporting the immunity of a county is certainly applicable to the state.
Accordingly the judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HOBSON, Acting C. J, and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G & J Invs. Corp. v. Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 429 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ty for the benefit of such party’s creditor is equivalent to garnishment proceeding against a state’s subdivision and impermissible); State (Dept. of Transp.) (Parks and Recreation Division of General Services Bureau) v. Gordon Bros. Concrete, Inc., 339 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (doctrine of sovereign immunity protects state from garnishment proceedings; statute providing right of garnishment contains no waiver by state); Board of County Com’rs. v. Gulf Pipeline Co., 168 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (co…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Fin. Servs. v. O'Connor, 155 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…y state agency); Wesley Constr. Co. v. Biscayne Constr. Inc., 341 So. 2d 786, 786-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (sovereign immunity barred attempt to garnish county, which owed money to judgment debtor); Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Gordon Bros. Concrete, Inc., 339 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (sovereign immunity barred attempt to garnish State, which owed money to judgment debtor); see also Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff v. State, 854 So. 2d 278, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (sovereign immunity barred Sher-riff’s action for…
Authorities Cited
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Tharp, 146 Fla. 745 (Fla. 1941)
- Spangler v. Fla. State Tpk. Auth., 106 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1958)
- Cir. Court OF Twelfth Jud. Cir. v. Dep't OF Natural Res. of the State of Fla., 339 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1976)
- Duval Cnty. v. The Charleston Lumber & Mfg. Co., 45 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1903)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Pollution Control v. Sebring Park Props., Inc., 317 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Dep't OF Natural Res. of the State of Fla. v. The Cir. Court OF the Twelfth Jud. Cir. & the Honorable Evelyn Gobbie, 317 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)