T.G.O.B., LLC v. Murphy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.G.O.B., LLC v. Murphy

37 So. 3d 985, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9553, 2010 WL 2598230

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 2010

Docket3D09-2771

StatusPublished

This text of 37 So. 3d 985 (T.G.O.B., LLC v. Murphy) 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

T.G.O.B., LLC v. Murphy, 37 So. 3d 985, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9553, 2010 WL 2598230 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SALTER, J.

We affirm the order On Motion for Default and Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment. The trial court properly denied T.G.O.B., LLC’s motion to dissolve writ of garnishment as it was untimely. § 77.055, Fla. Stat. (2009). As the court properly observed in that order, “the plaintiff, Michael J. Murphy, stands in no stronger position than that of the defendant, debtor, Carl E. Lindback, III. Thus, the plaintiff *986 can only recover the amount of funds that the defendant would have been entitled to, but for the garnishment.” Therefore, while T.G.O.B. is a party for purposes of determining the garnishment amount (if any) at a final hearing, only Carl E. Lind-back’s interest in the funds can be subject to garnishment.

The law firm’s role in this action is strictly that of a garnishee, or holder of the disputed funds for the benefit of the law firm’s client. There is no merit to the argument that the law firm’s role when served with the writ was that of an escrow agent.

Affirmed.

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

SALTER, J.

We affirm the order On Motion for Default and Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment. The trial court properly denied T.G.O.B., LLC’s motion to dissolve writ of garnishment as it was untimely. § 77.055, Fla. Stat. (2009). As the court properly observed in that order, “the plaintiff, Michael J. Murphy, stands in no stronger position than that of the defendant, debtor, Carl E. Lindback, III. Thus, the plaintiff *986 can only recover the amount of funds that the defendant would have been entitled to, but for the garnishment.” Therefore, while T.G.O.B. is a party for purposes of determining the garnishment amount (if any) at a final hearing, only Carl E. Lind-back’s interest in the funds can be subject to garnishment.

The law firm’s role in this action is strictly that of a garnishee, or holder of the disputed funds for the benefit of the law firm’s client. There is no merit to the argument that the law firm’s role when served with the writ was that of an escrow agent.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 So. 3d 985, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9553, 2010 WL 2598230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tgob-llc-v-murphy-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack