Collections

Pro Finish, Inc. v. Estate of All American Trailer Manufacturers, Inc.

Trial court erred in approving an assignee’s final report and denying reinstatement of a creditor’s lien because the debtor’s assignee failed to file the petition within ten days as required by section 727.104(2), Florida Statutes.  Pro Finish, Inc. v. Estate of All American Trailer Manufacturers, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1802 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 3, 2016).

Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A.

Trial court properly denied motion to dissolve a second writ of garnishment because a denial of a first writ of garnishment did not act as a bar on a the filing of a second writ and because the payments the attorneys “received were not salary, in the ordinary sense of the word, but were actually akin to shareholder distributions that were outside the scope of the exemption found in section 222.11.”  Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1742 (Fla. 4th DCA July 27, 2016).

SunTrust Bank v. Arrow Energy, Inc.

In garnishment action, trial court erred in denying motion for relief from final judgment because the judgment was void to the extent it included it prejudgment interest on the amount held by the garnishee.  SunTrust Bank v. Arrow Energy, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1178 (Fla. 4th DCA May 18, 2016). 2016 WL 2897611

SunTrust Bank v. Arrow Energy, Inc.

In garnishment action, trial court erred in denying motion for relief from final judgment because the judgment was void to the extent it included it prejudgment interest on the amount held by the garnishee.  SunTrust Bank v. Arrow Energy, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1178 (Fla. 4th DCA May 18, 2016). 2016 WL 2897611

Deluca v. David M. King, CPA, P.A.

In proceedings supplementary, trial court erred in denying impleaded defendants’ motion for relief from supplemental final judgment per Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 because they had not been personally served with the impleaded complaint.  Deluca v. David M. King, CPA, P.A., 197 So.3d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA April 29, 2016).

F/R 550, LLC v. National Auto Service Centers, Inc.

In proceedings supplementary, trial court erred in voiding three promissory notes per Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, sections 26.105(1)(a) and 108)(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2013) because “the one-year period created by the savings clause in section 726.110(1) begins on the date the transfer is discovered or could reasonably have been discovered, not on the date the fraudulent nature of the transfer was or could reasonably have been discovered” and because it “is a statute of repose that cannot be avoided by a plaintiff’s contention that a defendant is equitably estopped from asserting it as a defense.”  F/R 550, LLC v. National Auto Service Centers, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D777 (Fla. 2d DCA March 30, 2016).