Anthony Davide v. AD Capital Collections, LLC
This text of Anthony Davide v. AD Capital Collections, LLC (Anthony Davide v. AD Capital Collections, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 7, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D23-0595; 3D23-1463; 3D24-0667 & 3D24-1531 Lower Tribunal No. 12-32510 ________________
Anthony Davide, Appellant,
vs.
AD Capital Collections, LLC, Appellee.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Guzman and Mavel Ruiz, Judges.
Moreno Perdomo, PLLC, and Gino Moreno and Arlenys Perdomo, for appellant.
Sequor Law P.A., and Gregory S. Grossman and Jennifer Mosquera, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
LOGUE, C.J. Anthony Davide appeals, among other things, the final summary
judgments of garnishment entered against two of his self-directed individual
retirement accounts. As to the first account, the trial court found that Davide
engaged in prohibited transactions in 2016, as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 4975(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code, that benefited “disqualified persons” as
defined in 26 U.S.C. § 4975(e)(2), namely Davide’s wife and children. As a
result, Davide’s IRA “cease[d] to be an individual retirement account as of
the first day of such taxable year.” 26 U.S.C. § 408(e)(2)(A). Therefore, in
2016, due to the “prohibited transactions,” this account lost its exemption
from creditor claims afforded by section 222.21(2)(a), Florida Statutes. As to
Davide’s second account, the trial court found Davide funded the second
account with funds from the first account after the first account lost its exempt
status in 2016, and therefore, the second account also lost its exempt status.
We have carefully reviewed the arguments raised by Davide and find
no error warranting reversal. See In re Moore, 640 B.R. 397, 406 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio 2022) (“IRA owners run afoul of § 4975 when they attempt to
circumvent taxes or otherwise engage in some form of self-dealing, whether
through a direct or indirect transfer.”).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anthony Davide v. AD Capital Collections, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-davide-v-ad-capital-collections-llc-fladistctapp-2025.