Schmitt v. Boyle
This text of 598 So. 2d 165 (Schmitt v. Boyle) 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.
Opinion
Smith, as personal representative of the estate of Blanche Boyle, appeals from a nonfinal order denying a motion for garnishment and injunctive relief. We hold that the funds used to post the supersedeas bond are not garnishable while in the depository of the court. See Leatherman v. Gimourginas, 192 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (funds in custodia legis are not gar-nishable).
Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice and remand with directions that, upon proper application for return of the bond, the trial court should specify when the funds are to be released and notify all parties involved of that fact.
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
598 So. 2d 165, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4932, 1992 WL 84156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmitt-v-boyle-fladistctapp-1992.