Mullins Lumber Co. v. W.W. Lumber & Building Supplies, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mullins Lumber Co. v. W.W. Lumber & Building Supplies, Inc.

446 So. 2d 1083

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 28, 1983·No. Nos. 82-1809, 82-1927·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

BERANEK, Judge.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. We agree based on C & S Plumbing, Inc., v. Live Supply, Inc., 397 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

A final judgment awarding W.W. Lumber $26,823.52 was filed on February 2, 1981. On February 5, 1981, W.W. Lumber filed a motion for writ of garnishment naming Mullins Lumber as garnishee. The writ was issued the same day and served on garnishee one day later. Appellant then filed a motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment as untimely filed and executed, which the trial court denied.

We reverse on the basis of our opinion in C & S Plumbing, Inc., supra, wherein we stated, “The time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing has not expired; therefore, the writ was issued prematurely.” Accordingly, we reverse and remand for action consistent herewith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.

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

BERANEK, Judge.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. We agree based on C & S Plumbing, Inc., v. Live Supply, Inc., 397 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

A final judgment awarding W.W. Lumber $26,823.52 was filed on February 2, 1981. On February 5, 1981, W.W. Lumber filed a motion for writ of garnishment naming Mullins Lumber as garnishee. The writ was issued the same day and served on garnishee one day later. Appellant then filed a motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment as untimely filed and executed, which the trial court denied.

We reverse on the basis of our opinion in C & S Plumbing, Inc., supra, wherein we stated, “The time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing has not expired; therefore, the writ was issued prematurely.” Accordingly, we reverse and remand for action consistent herewith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.

Mullins Lumber Co. v. W.W. Lumber & Building Supplies, Inc., 446 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

446 So. 2d 1083 (Mullins Lumber Co. v. W.W. Lumber & Building Supplies, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related