T-Jett Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc.

554 So. 2d 592, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7149, 1989 WL 153775
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 19, 1989·No. No. 89-2152·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following this court’s opinion reported in T-Jett Enterprises v. Ernest and Stewart, Inc., 543 So.2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the matter recurred in the trial court on a motion to enforce mandate. As a result the trial court ordered the garnished funds to be held in escrow by several orders. The defendant appeals the last of these orders which we treat as a motion to enforce mandate, see Article V, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, and we remand with instructions to return the funds garnished to the garnishee, as though the garnishment had not taken place in the first instance. Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So.2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

T-Jett Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc., 554 So. 2d 592, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7149, 1989 WL 153775 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

554 So. 2d 592 (T-Jett Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Lindsey
543 So. 2d 886 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1989)
Silverman v. Lichtman
296 So. 2d 495 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)