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