Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. American Medical Express Corp.

671 So. 2d 819, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3310
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 3, 1996·No. Nos. 95-1432, 95-870·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We hold that the trial court properly vacated a garnishment judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5)1 because the underlying debt owed by the garnishee to the plaintiff-garnishor’s judgment debtor had been fully satisfied. See § 77.083, Fla.Stat. (1995); First Florida Bank, N.A v. R.D.P. of Naples, Inc., 573 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA [820]*8201991); Carpenter v. Benson, 478 So.2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So.2d 829 (Fla.1986); United Presidential Life Ins. Co. v. King, 361 So.2d 710 (Fla.1978). See generally Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 629 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Weitzman v. F.I.F.. Consultants, Inc., 468 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 479 So.2d 117 (Fla.1985). On the cross-appeal, we likewise find no error.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. American Medical Express Corp., 671 So. 2d 819, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3310 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

671 So. 2d 819 (Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. American Medical Express Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cunha v. Cunha
92 So. 3d 918 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)