Garnishment Action

62 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Coblentz v. Am. Sur. Co. OF NEW York
  416 F.2d 1059· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-05 ·cited 109×
• Beal Bank v. Almand & Assocs.
  780 So. 2d 45· Fla.· 2001-03-01 ·cited 97×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a rebuttable presumption arises that joint bank accounts titled in the names of both spouses are held as tenancies by the entireties, protecting such accounts from garnishment by a creditor of only one spouse, unless the signature card expressl
• Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co. of Milwaukee v. McNULTY
  307 F.2d 432· 5th Cir.· 1962-08-21 ·cited 92×
  The court concurred in the result but questioned the use of 'punitive damages' as a public policy standard, suggesting that the nature of the wrongdoer's conduct, rather than the type of damages awarded, should determine the insurability of liability.
• Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & Chem. Bank v. Merry
  592 F.2d 118· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-29 ·cited 70×
  A state court garnishment order to satisfy court-ordered family support obligations is an implied exception to ERISA's anti-alienation and preemption provisions.
• Cosmopolitan Health SPA, Inc. v. Health Indus., Inc.
  362 So. 2d 367· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-08-16 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the non-resident garnishee under Florida's long-arm statute.
• Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A. v. First Am. Holdings, Inc.
  982 So. 2d 628· Fla.· 2008-05-01 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that attorneys and other non-bank garnishees have a duty to issue stop payment orders on checks drawn from trust accounts and delivered to clients before garnishment if the checks have not yet been presented to the bank for payment. This case clarif
• FOX v. Brewer
  620 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-11 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely filed and that even if treated as a Rule 60(b) motion, relief was not warranted due to lack of timely filing and insufficient grounds.
• Crocker Invs., Inc. v. Statesman Life Ins. Co.
  515 So. 2d 1305· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-11-10 ·cited 32×
  Although res judicata ordinarily bars successive motions for relief from judgment, a trial court may properly entertain a second motion raising grounds not presented in the first when the new grounds reveal the judgment was erroneously entered due to serious procedural irregulari
• Argento v. Vill. OF Melrose Park
  838 F.2d 1483· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to enforce judgments against a municipality and its insurer under supplementary and pendent jurisdiction, and that Illinois' § 9-102 makes a local public entity directly liable for employee tort judgments.
• Citizens Nat'l Bank OF Naples v. Ind. Ins. Co. & Nat'l Am. Ins. Co.
  340 So. 2d 107· Fla.· 1976-11-30 ·cited 29×
  Florida Supreme Court transferred the case back to the District Court of Appeal because the trial court's unconstitutional ruling on Fla. Stat. § 77.031 was neither assigned as error nor argued on appeal, making it an improper basis for jurisdiction.
• Jeral Kirk v. The Home Indem. Co.
  431 F.2d 554· 7th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the insured's repeated, substantial, and intentional misrepresentations to his insurer constituted a breach of the cooperation clause, justifying summary judgment for the insurer in a garnishment action.
• Moran Bros., Inc. v. Yinger
  323 F.2d 699· 10th Cir.· 1963-10-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the lower court misinterpreted Texas law regarding oral assignments of bank accounts and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the creditor had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent at the time of the alleged assignment.
• Ser-Nestler, Inc. v. Gen. Fin. Loan Co. OF Miami Nw.
  167 So. 2d 230· Fla. 3d DCA· 1964-09-15 ·cited 19×
  A garnishee (Ser-Nestler, Inc.) appeals a judgment entered against it in a garnishment action brought by General Finance Loan Company to satisfy a debt owed by Dave and Emma Grace. The trial court reduced the garnishment judgment to $480 based on wage exemptions and declared the
• The Emp'rs' Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Owens
  78 So. 2d 104· Fla.· 1955-02-04 ·cited 18×
  An employee injured while riding in his employer's truck sued the employer and garnisheed the employer's automobile liability insurance carrier. The court reversed the summary judgment against the insurer, holding that the policy's exclusion clause (d) categorically excludes cove
• Giles v. SUN Bank, N.A.
  450 So. 2d 258· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-04-19 ·cited 17×
  An informal employment agreement constitutes a valid equitable assignment of contract rights where the parties plainly intended assignment and the assignee assumed performance obligations, even without special words of art. Such assignment has priority over subsequent garnishment
• Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Fields
  181 So. 2d 187· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-12-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the silo was not in the care, custody, or control of the insured contractor under the insurance policy's exclusionary clause, as the rental company exercised possessory control through its directed operator.
• Jones v. S. Marine & Aviation Underwriters, Inc.
  888 F.2d 358· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 12×
  Underwriters are not liable under the agreed judgment because the insurance certificates required the insured's personal liability, which was absent, and the insured failed to obtain Underwriters' consent to the settlement, and Underwriters had no duty to defend.
• Daniels v. Sorriso Dental Studio, LLC
  164 So. 3d 778· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-05-27 ·cited 11×
  Daniels obtained a judgment against Demilly and sought garnishment of her wages from her employer, Sorriso Dental Studio. When Demilly filed bankruptcy and her debt was discharged, the county court dismissed Daniels' garnishment action against Sorriso, and the circuit court affir
• Tri-State Cas. Ins. Co. v. Loper
  204 F.2d 557· 10th Cir.· 1953-02-13 ·cited 10×
• Lancer Ins. Co. v. Gomez
  799 So. 2d 334· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-10-17 ·cited 9×
  Lancer Insurance appealed a trial court's grant of partial summary judgment finding that its automobile liability policy covered injuries sustained during a hijacking and shooting incident on a jitney bus. The appellate court reversed, holding that the injuries were not caused by
• Queen v. Travelers Ins. Co.
  258 So. 2d 35· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 627.0127(1) applies to garnishment proceedings, entitling both the insured policyholder and the judgment-holding garnishor to attorney's fees.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co.
  236 So. 2d 204· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-06-02 ·cited 8×
  First National Bank of Leesburg appeals a summary judgment allowing garnishment of a joint checking account held by Noah Peterson and his wife to satisfy Peterson's individual judgment debt. The court affirmed, holding that a joint checking account where either spouse can unilate
• Tavormina v. Aquatic Co.
  65 B.R. 602· S.D. Fla.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the bankruptcy court's decisions regarding the validity and priority of insurance claim assignments and a garnishment action.
• Niesz v. Albright
  217 So. 2d 606· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-01-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the insurer was prejudiced by the insured's delayed notice of the accident, precluding summary judgment.
• United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe INS. Co.
  209 F.2d 684· 5th Cir.· 1953-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The United States' tax lien, arising upon assessment and notice, takes priority over a prior served garnishment writ where no judgment was obtained by the garnishing creditor before the tax lien became valid.
• Solano v. Fed. Title & Ins. Corp.
  229 So. 2d 312· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-12-23 ·cited 5×
  An insurer cannot rely on a policy's notice provision to deny coverage if the insured was not provided with the policy or other documentation informing her of that requirement.
• Stansell v. Samark Jose Lopez Bello
  120 F.4th 754· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of default judgment against the appellants for willfully disobeying discovery orders and failing to appear for a deposition, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Northland Ins. Co.
  31 So. 3d 214· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-03-03 ·cited 4×
  Chicago Title Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment in favor of Northland Insurance Company, its errors and omissions carrier, in a dispute over coverage for claims arising from an attorney's misappropriation of escrow funds. The court affirmed, holding that Northland prop
• In re Masvidal v. Tavormina
  10 F.3d 761· 11th Cir.· 1993-12-30 ·cited 4×
  Continental National Bank and Ocean Bank obtained judgments against a debtor and served writs of garnishment on Hamilton Bank to satisfy those judgments from funds the debtor held there. The Eleventh Circuit held that mere service of a writ of garnishment does not create a lien u
• Edward F. Gerace, P.A. v. Hayden
  550 So. 2d 1143· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-08-15 ·cited 4×
  Two lawyers competed for attorney's fees owed by the same corporate client. A lawyer holding a 1978 judgment against the corporation garnished a $50,000 attorney's fee award that the corporation had received in 1988 under section 627.428, Florida Statutes. The court reversed, hol
• Esmailzadeh v. Johnson AND Speakman
  869 F.2d 422· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a "claims-made" insurance policy requires both the claim to be made and reported within the policy period for coverage to apply, and a delay in reporting does not excuse the insurer absent prejudice in occurrence policies.
• Davidson v. Lonoke Prod. Credit Ass'n
  695 F.2d 1115· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-22 ·cited 4×
  The prior Arkansas state court judgment collaterally estops the PCA from relitigating its security interest in the crops, as the issue was actually litigated and decided against PCA, and Arkansas law would likely follow modern trends rejecting strict mutuality of estoppel.
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Reece
  223 F.2d 114· 10th Cir.· 1955-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the endorsement to the insurance policy clearly limited coverage for non-owned automobiles used in the business of the named insured, excluding the truck owner and driver.
• Pa. Cas. Co. v. McCOY
  167 F.2d 132· 5th Cir.· 1948-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurer was liable for the judgment against its assured because the trips beyond the policy's 500-mile radius were not 'regular or frequent' enough to void coverage. The denial of attorney's fees to the judgment creditor was also affirmed.
• Wright v. Newman
  767 F.2d 460· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 3×
  An excess liability insurer is not liable when the underlying policies were cancelled prior to the loss and did not cover the driver, as the excess policy's coverage was conditioned on the maintenance and payment of the underlying policies.
• McINTOSH v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  992 F.2d 251· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the additional insured endorsement in the liability policy covered the city for its own negligence, as the policy language was ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured.
• Maury Hexamer v. Foreness
  981 F.2d 821· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it erred by dismissing the case instead of remanding it to state court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
• Juedell T. Lawrence v. Va. Ins. Reciprocal
  979 F.2d 1053· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 2×
  An insurer is not estopped from asserting sovereign immunity in a garnishment action if the insured and insurer did not have aligned interests in the underlying litigation. Sovereign immunity is waived for mental anguish damages to the extent of available insurance, but not for p
• State OF Miss. ex rel. v. J.W. "Jake" Richardson
  817 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that neither the insured nor the county provided timely notice of the claim to the insurer, and the insured's actions constituted deliberate dishonesty or fraud, thus barring coverage.
• Murray v. Murray
  558 F.2d 1340· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a subsequent amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 659, clarifying that 'child support' and 'alimony' include attorney's fees, should be applied retroactively to this case. Therefore, the garnishment of federal wages for attorney fees is permissible.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Holland
  296 So. 2d 100· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-06-20 ·cited 2×
  This garnishment action concerns whether a Cadillac, driven by Ian Craw and owned by his brother James, was a 'non-owned automobile' under a $100,000-$300,000 liability policy held by their father Joseph on his Chevrolet, following an accident where a guest passenger was injured.
• Elmon ROY v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
  438 F.2d 338· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the pump was leased to Ardena Company was not clearly erroneous, and thus the insurance policy exclusion applied.
• Bullock v. N. Ins. Co. of N.Y.
  331 F.2d 431· 10th Cir.· 1964-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of timely service was supported by the record, and the garnishee was properly discharged.
• Vesper Price O'Brien v. Howell
  92 So. 2d 608· Fla.· 1957-01-04 ·cited 2×
  A judgment for assault and battery falls within the Bankruptcy Act exception for willful and malicious injuries to the person because the jury must have found an intentional act without just cause or excuse, which satisfies the federal definition of malice in its legal sense.
• Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Camden Summit P'ship, L.P.
  406 So. 3d 964· Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-04-02 ·cited 1×
  A final judgment in garnishment is void when the trial court enters judgment on issues not noticed for hearing and not raised in pending motions, thereby violating the garnishee's due process rights to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
• GWN Petroleum Corp. v. Ok-Tex OIL & GAS, Inc.
  998 F.2d 853· 10th Cir.· 1993-07-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a garnishment action against the FDIC is barred by federal statutes (12 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(13)(C), 1823(d)(3)(A), and 1825(b)(2)) which prohibit involuntary liens and garnishments against FDIC property without its consent. The court also found no abuse of discr
• Howard v. Greer
  440 So. 2d 1309· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-10-25 ·cited 1×
  The Howards, judgment creditors of an insolvent real estate trust, sought to recover proceeds from a malpractice action brought by the trust's attorney. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the Howards had waived their right to the malpractice proc
• Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Veros Credit, LLC
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2026-04-10
  A trial court abuses its discretion when it imposes sanctions for bad faith litigation without competent substantial evidence supporting the finding, particularly where the defendant raised a valid jurisdictional defense that required an evidentiary hearing under Florida law.
• Storey Mountain, LLC v. Ashco, Inc.
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2025-10-03
  A trial court does not abuse its discretion by vacating a default judgment when the moving party demonstrates excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence, and equitable considerations support relief under Rule 1.540(b).
• Ziegler v. Hartmut Ziegler
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2020-07-10
  A trial court may grant a writ of garnishment when the defendant fails to prove the head-of-household exemption, but section 57.115 does not authorize an award of attorney's fees in garnishment proceedings.