Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A.

672 So. 2d 888, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4558, 1996 WL 210878

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1444

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 672 So. 2d 888 (Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A.) 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

Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 672 So. 2d 888, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4558, 1996 WL 210878 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 646 So.2d 187 (Fla.1994), quashing Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), that the disability insurance settlement receivable by the judgment debtor was exempt from garnishment under section 222.18, Florida Statutes (1991), plainly required the return not only of the principal sum which had been wrongfully garnished but of the interest on that amount as well. See Hill v. First Nat’l Bank, 79 Fla. 391, 84 So. 190 (1920); Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Accordingly, the contrary ruling below is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate determination of the amount of interest in question.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 646 So.2d 187 (Fla.1994), quashing Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), that the disability insurance settlement receivable by the judgment debtor was exempt from garnishment under section 222.18, Florida Statutes (1991), plainly required the return not only of the principal sum which had been wrongfully garnished but of the interest on that amount as well. See Hill v. First Nat’l Bank, 79 Fla. 391, 84 So. 190 (1920); Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Accordingly, the contrary ruling below is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate determination of the amount of interest in question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 So. 2d 888, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4558, 1996 WL 210878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zuckerman-v-hofrichter-quiat-pa-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack