James v. Commercial Bank at Apopka

District Court of Appeal of Florida

James v. Commercial Bank at Apopka

310 So. 2d 399, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14013

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 1975

DocketNo. 73-1223

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 310 So. 2d 399 (James v. Commercial Bank at Apopka) 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

James v. Commercial Bank at Apopka, 310 So. 2d 399, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14013 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Chief Judge.

The issue in this case is whether certain funds in a checking account at the garnishee bank were the property of the judgment debtor, Jim James, as alleged by the judgment creditor-garnishor, or were the property of one M. A. James, the eighteen year old daughter of Jim James, as reflected by the records of the garnishee bank.

This was a factual issue. Viewed most favorably to the judgment the evidence established the following: For many years Jim James had been in the business of wholesale buying and selling and leasing used automobiles; in June, 1972, the plaintiff in this case recovered a judgment against him in the amount of $10,010.20; a few months later appellant herein, M. A. James, the eighteen year old daughter of Jim James, ostensibly went into the identical business in which her father had been [400]*400engaged for many years, under the tutelage and with the assistance of her father who received as compensation only his expenses; the business was started without any working capital but with 10 or 12 automobiles on hand under consignment, and as the vehicles were sold and paid for the profits were placed in a checking account with the garnishee bank under the name of “Leasing Systems”, shown on the bank records as wholely owned Iby M. A. James.

The court, specifically rejecting the testimony of Jim James and M. A. James relative to the question of who, in fact, owned the business, and describing the same as being unworthy of belief and stretching credulity to the “breaking point”, found that the funds in the account were in truth and in fact assets of Jim James and, thus, subject to the writ of garnishment. We find no reason to disturb this factual finding. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

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

OWEN, Chief Judge.

The issue in this case is whether certain funds in a checking account at the garnishee bank were the property of the judgment debtor, Jim James, as alleged by the judgment creditor-garnishor, or were the property of one M. A. James, the eighteen year old daughter of Jim James, as reflected by the records of the garnishee bank.

This was a factual issue. Viewed most favorably to the judgment the evidence established the following: For many years Jim James had been in the business of wholesale buying and selling and leasing used automobiles; in June, 1972, the plaintiff in this case recovered a judgment against him in the amount of $10,010.20; a few months later appellant herein, M. A. James, the eighteen year old daughter of Jim James, ostensibly went into the identical business in which her father had been [400]*400engaged for many years, under the tutelage and with the assistance of her father who received as compensation only his expenses; the business was started without any working capital but with 10 or 12 automobiles on hand under consignment, and as the vehicles were sold and paid for the profits were placed in a checking account with the garnishee bank under the name of “Leasing Systems”, shown on the bank records as wholely owned Iby M. A. James.

The court, specifically rejecting the testimony of Jim James and M. A. James relative to the question of who, in fact, owned the business, and describing the same as being unworthy of belief and stretching credulity to the “breaking point”, found that the funds in the account were in truth and in fact assets of Jim James and, thus, subject to the writ of garnishment. We find no reason to disturb this factual finding. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 So. 2d 399, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-commercial-bank-at-apopka-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack