Schmitt v. Boyle

598 So. 2d 165, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4932, 1992 WL 84156
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 28, 1992
DocketNo. 91-2649
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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.

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

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

Related

Boyle v. Schmitt
602 So. 2d 665 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.