Codeventures, LLC v. Vital Motion Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-21574-CIV-MORE |
| Parties | CODEVENTURES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. VITAL MOTION INC., a Delaware corporation, and DAVID A. LOVENHEIM, an individual, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
ORDER GRANTING VITAL MOTION, INC'S MOTION TO DISSOLVE WRIT OF GARNISHMENT AND DISSOLVING WRIT AS TO BANK OF AMERICA
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Vital Motion, Inc.'s Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment (D.E. 112), on June 30, 2021. Because Vital's Bank of America accounts are in South Carolina, Vital's motion to dissolve Codeventures LLC's writ of garnishment as to Bank of America is granted.
On April 27, 2021, the Court entered Final Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Codeventures, LLC and against the Defendant Vital Motion, Inc. in the amount of $122, 421.72, after granting Codeventures' motion for summary judgment on its breach of promissory note claim against Vital. Subsequently, Codeventures filed an ex parte Application for Writ of Garnishment with the Clerk of the Court, seeking a writ of garnishment[1] as to Bank of America Corporation, as it was "believed to have possession of property in which the Judgment Debtor [Vital] has a substantial, non-exempt interest."[2] Codeventures also filed an ex parte motion for appointment of a process server. The Clerk then entered a Writ of Garnishment as to Bank of America and appointed a process server.
Bank of America, the garnishee, filed an answer to the writ of garnishment, indicating it had set aside the following amounts from three accounts for Vital: $434.21, $3.95; and $406.09 (total: $844.25). (D.E. 91 ¶ 2). Bank of America's answer lists the following information under the three bank accounts: Id. ¶1.
Codeventures then filed a notice to Judgment Debtors and Certificate of Service, certifying that "a copy of the June 2, 2021 Writ of Garnishment to Bank of America [] and a copy of the Ex-Parte Motion for Appointment of Process Server [], together with this certificate of service" was served on Vital and its counsel. (D.E. 92).[3] Codeventures also later filed a Notice of Serving Answer of Garnishee on Vital, indicating "that [Vital] must move to dissolve the writ of garnishment within 20 days after the date indicated on the certificate of service in this notice if any allegation in the Plaintiffs motion or writ of garnishment is untrue."[4] (D.E. 93). On June 30, 2021, Vital timely moved to dissolve the writ of garnishment as to Bank of America (D.E. 112).
After Codeventures filed its response in opposition and Vital filed a reply, the Court ordered the parties to file proof showing the location of Vital's bank accounts. Vital timely filed a Declaration of Terry Bradley, Vital's Controller and Corporate Secretary since 2012, where Bradley avers that two of the bank accounts at issue were opened in Leesburg, Virginia (accounts xxxx-1684 and xxxx-1697) in 2012 (D.E. 125-1 ¶ 4), and one was opened in Cornelius, North Carolina (account xxxx-9650) in 2017 (id. ¶ 5). Moreover, Bradley avers that "[a]t all material times, the address on each of the three accounts has been Vital's principal place of business, which changed from Leesburg, Virginia, to Cornelius, North Carolina, and is now located in Indian Land, South Carolina." (D.E. 125-1 ¶ 6). This is consistent with Bank of America's listed address for the account holder, Vital, in its answer to the writ. (D.E. 91, ¶ 1). Codeventures did not file any supplementary documents by the Court's deadline, and the time to do so has passed.
In its motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment, Vital points out that Bank of America's answer to the writ indicates that the three Vital bank accounts are located in Indian Land, South Carolina. (D.E. 112 ¶ 4); (D.E. 91 ¶ 1). As a result, Vital now seeks dissolution of the writ, contending that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Vital's Bank of America accounts located in South Carolina. See Skulas v. Loiselle, No. 09-60096, 2010 WL 1790439, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 1790433 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2010). In Skulas, the plaintiff obtained a writ of garnishment directed to PNC Bank, N.A.'s Fort Lauderdale branch. 2010 WL 1790439, at *1. The defendant sought to dissolve the writ, arguing that the "plaintiff improperly 's[ought] to use a Florida writ to garnish [the defendant's] assets in Pennsylvania" and reiterating that it maintained an account with PNC Bank but through a branch located in Pennsylvania. Id. at *2. The court in Skulas characterized the issue there as "whether, under Florida's garnishment statute, a judgment creditor can garnish a bank account maintained outside of Florida." Id. The court answered the question in the negative, "find[ing] that because the bank account at issue [was] located in Pennsylvania, the Court d[id] not have jurisdiction over it and the instant Writ of Garnishment [] should be dissolved." Id. at *3. Despite that the fact that the garnishment statute, § 77.04, included "no express territorial limitation on the location of the property within the garnishee's possession or control," Id. at *2, the Skulas court relied on APR Energy in reaching its recommendation, which is also cited by Vital. Id. at *2 (citing APR Energy, LLC v. Pakistan Power Resources, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-961-J-25MCR, 2009 WL 425975, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009).[5] After neither side filed objections to the report and recommendation, the district court adopted it and dissolved the writ of garnishment. Skulas, 2010 WL 1790433, at *1.
Additionally, Vital cites to the court's report and recommendation in Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte Int'l GmbH, Case No. 16-24275-CIV-MORENO, 2020 WL 6384878 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 6384299 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2020). That case involved proceedings supplementary where the respondent filed a motion "seek[ing] to seize the intangible contract rights that [petitioner] ha[d] as a result of its contract with [a] third[] party []." Inversiones, 2020 WL 6384878, at *1. In relevant part, Magistrate Judge Louis found that "the only way by which this Court could allow [respondent] to reach those funds would be through a writ of garnishment on the bank account in which they have been deposited, such a move, though, would be in contravention of Florida law." Id. at *4. And the move would be in contravention of Florida law because, in that case, "all the funds [were] held outside of the state of Florida and, thus, [were] beyond the reach of a Florida writ of garnishment." Id. Given that garnishment proceedings are quasi in rem, meaning that the presiding court must have personal jurisdiction over the garnishee (in personam) and jurisdiction over the property or res (in rem), see Id. (citing Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), 149 F.Supp.3d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (Stansell I)), Magistrate Judge Louis found that the court was without jurisdiction to "levy a writ of garnishment on the bank accounts in Costa Rica" and recommended that the motion to seize intangible property be denied. Id. After the parties failed to file any objections to the report and recommendation, this Court adopted it. See Inversiones, 2020 WL 6384299, at *1.
In its response in opposition, Codeventures maintains that "Vital's Motion is based on an unsupported assumption that the [Bank of America] [a]ccounts in which the funds are held are physically located in South Carolina" and Bank of America's "Answer to the Writ[], however, does not state that." Codeventures argues that the writ only lists an address for Vital in South Carolina and that "[f]here is no indication or confirmation that the Accounts are located in South Carolina, as Vital contends." Codeventures posits that Vital's motion should be denied for this reason alone, without citing to any legal authority. All three bank accounts include the name on the account, Vital Motion, Inc., with an address, 8029 S. Dorchester Tree., Indian Land, SC. (D.E. 91, ¶ 1). And, according to Terry Bradley, the Controller and Corporate Secretary of Vital, the three Bank of America accounts were never opened or maintained in Florida. (D.E. 125-1 ¶ 6).
Codeventures does not attempt to address or distinguish Skulas; instead, it refers the Court to Ellis v. Barclays Bank PLC-Miami Agency, 594 So.2d 826, 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) but, as the court noted in Skulas, 2010 WL 1790439, at *2, Ellis involved a different issue. Ellis involved a plaintiff that served a writ of garnishment on Barclays Bank, the garnishee, and it "answered the writ by accounting for all accounts in the United States, and it stated it did not have possession or control of any monies payable to [plaintiffs former husband]." 594 So.2d at 827. The plaintiff "traversed [the garnishee's] denial of debt due to failure to account for its Caribbean branches, especially the branch in Antigua." See Id. The garnishee filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to be "discharged from further liability after having accounted for all accounts held by [the plaintiffs husband] in Florida and elsewhere in the United States." Id. The garnishee "further argued that the process of a United States court served on a United States branch of an international bank cannot reach deposits possibly held in foreign branches." Id. (emphasis added). The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered an order discharging the garnishee from further liability under the writ of garnishment. Id. Florida's Court of Appeal for the Third...
To continue reading
Request your trial