Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Cosentino v. Elson

Cosentino v. Elson

263 So. 2d 253, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6599
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 20, 1972
DocketNo. 72-41
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 263 So. 2d 253 (Cosentino v. Elson) 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.

Bluebook
Cosentino v. Elson, 263 So. 2d 253, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6599 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of the trial court, here under review, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Funds in escrow are not subject to garnishment [see: 6 Am.Jur.2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 125; 28 Am.Jur.2d, Escrow, § 10; 38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 77c(l); Anno. 10 A.L.R. 741] except where all conditions of the escrow had been completed and the funds without dispute are due to a judgment debtor.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Nova Ins. Group v. Dept. of Ins.
606 So. 2d 429 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Clarendon Group, Ltd. v. Lahus II, Inc.
601 So. 2d 630 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Fla. Psc v. Pruitt, Humphress
587 So. 2d 561 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Central National Bank v. Broadview Savings & Loan Co.
411 N.E.2d 840 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 So. 2d 253, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosentino-v-elson-fladistctapp-1972.