Doug Sears Consulting, Inc. v. ATS SERVICES, INC., 1D99-1995.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D99-1995.,1D99-1995. |
| Parties | DOUG SEARS CONSULTING, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Doug Sears & Associates, and John D. Sears, an individual, Appellants, v. ATS SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a StaffFunds Unlimited, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Baumer, W. David Talbert, and Rebecca B. Creed of Baumer, Bradford & Walters, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellants.
David E. Otero and Peter E. Nicandri of Milam, Otero, Larsen, Dawson & Traylor, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.
Doug Sears Consulting (Sears Consulting) seeks review of a nonfinal order denying its Motion to Dissolve Prejudgment Writs of Garnishment entered by the trial court on April 28, 1999. Sears Consulting is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of placing temporary and permanent employees with business entities. Sears Consulting owns fifty percent of the stock of Creative System Solutions, Inc., a company that markets and manufactures recruiting software and data bases, and provides computer consulting. Appellee, ATS Services, Inc. (ATS), is also engaged in the business of providing businesses with temporary and permanent employees, and also provides payroll financing or funding for other companies engaged in the employee placement business. ATS and Sears Consulting, on June 20, 1997, entered into a Payroll Financing Agreement/Funding Agreement (the Agreement). Under the Agreement, ATS agreed to purchase certain accounts receivable from Sears Consulting, defined as "Acceptable Accounts Receivable," in order to provide Sears Consulting with financing. In the event that a customer of Sears Consulting did not pay the amount due on an Acceptable Accounts Receivable in a timely manner, the unpaid amount was deemed a "Bad Debt" and Sears Consulting was required to pay this amount to ATS.
ATS terminated the Agreement in February of 1999, when it began to suspect that Sears Consulting was accumulating "Bad Debt." ATS, after Sears Consulting failed to pay all amounts owing, filed suit against Sears Consulting and its president, John Sears. Count five of the complaint was a claim that sought foreclosure of the security interest contained in the Agreement.
While this action was pending, ATS, on March 24, 1999, filed and served upon Sears Consulting four Verified Motions for Prejudgment Writs of Garnishment (Verified Motions) pursuant to section 77.031, Florida Statutes (1997). The trial court held a hearing on ATS's motions on March 31, 1999. Sears Consulting filed the affidavit of John D. Sears in opposition thereto. The trial judge heard argument from counsel, and then determined from the verified pleadings that ATS had made a prima facie case for issuance of the four requested prejudgment writs of garnishment. ATS posted the required bond in double the amount sought and the writs were issued on April 8, 1999.
Sears Consulting, on April 7, 1999, filed and served a Motion to Dissolve Prejudgment Writs of Garnishment (Motion to Dissolve) pursuant to section 77.07, Florida Statutes (1997). A hearing on the Motion to Dissolve was held on April 16, 1999, before a successor judge. At this hearing, the trial judge had before him only the verified pleadings which were considered by the judge in the previous hearing, together with the affidavit of Carl Carver1. No testimony or other evidence was considered on the issue of whether the prejudgment writs should be dissolved. An order was entered on April 28, 1999, denying the motion to dissolve the writs of garnishment.
ATS argued before the trial court that "the requirements for the writs and prejudgment garnishment were satisfied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Warner, 06CA2252.
...quite another to accept the same affidavit for the purpose of resolving that dispute. See, e.g., Doug Sears Consulting, Inc. v. ATS Services, Inc., 752 So.2d 668, 670 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000) (affidavit not generally admissible at evidentiary hearing because it is not subject to cross-examina......
-
The People Of The State Of Colo. v. Warner
...another to accept the same affidavit for the purpose of resolving that dispute. See, e.g., Doug Sears Consulting, Inc. v. ATS Services, Inc., 752 So. 2d 668, 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (affidavit not generally admissible at evidentiary hearing because it is not subject to crossexaminati......
-
Merriman Invs., LLC v. Ujowundu
...the writ was issued, including the debtor's ownership of the garnished property. See§ 77.07(1); Doug Sears Consulting, Inc. v. ATS Servs., Inc., 752 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Thus, Merriman had the initial burden of proving the wages paid to Ms. Ujowundu belonged to her. Merriman ......
-
B.C.S., S.R.L. v. Wise
...because they are not subject to cross-examination, and they shift the burden to the other party. Doug Sears Consulting, Inc. v. ATS Servs., Inc., 752 So.2d 668, 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Without the opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Gai, the affidavit was insufficient to satisfy Venetian Sala......