Schmitt v. Boyle

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schmitt v. Boyle

598 So. 2d 165, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4932, 1992 WL 84156

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 28, 1992·No. No. 91-2649·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

Schmitt v. Boyle, 598 So. 2d 165, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4932, 1992 WL 84156 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

598 So. 2d 165 (Schmitt v. Boyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related