Reese v. Baker
| Citation | 98 Fla. 52,123 So. 3 |
| Parties | REESE v. BAKER, Sheriff. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1929 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original habeas corpus proceedings by T. T. Reese to secure his release from the custody of R. C. Baker, Sheriff of Palm Beach County.
Petitioner remanded.
Syllabus by the Court
Inquiry as to property held by judgment debtor within or outside state held pertinent in supplementary proceedings (Comp. Gen Laws 1927, §§ 4540 et seq., 4542). In proceeding supplementary to execution under Acts 1919, c. 7842 (Comp Gen. Laws 1927, § 4540 et seq.), and Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4542, court could require judgment debtor to make disclosure as to any property held by him or others in his behalf whether property was located within or without boundaries of state, since purpose of statute is to aid judgment creditor in securing information leading to satisfaction of execution and information tending to do this directly or indirectly must be given.
Supplementary proceedings cannot be employed to pry into judgment debtor's private affairs, in absence of reasonable belief of concealment or fraudulent transfer (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4540 et seq.). Proceedings supplementary to execution under Acts 1919, c. 7842 (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4540 et seq.), cannot be employed for purpose of prying into judgment debtor's private affairs, in absence of reasonable or well-founded belief of concealment or fraudulent transfer, and cannot be used to uncover personal affairs or relations of unfortunate debtors in search of some clue leading to information desired.
Statute authorizing proceedings supplementary to execution, and commitment of debtor thereunder for contempt for failure to disclose property outside state, held not to involve imprisonment for debt (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, §§ 4540 et seq., 4542, 4549; Const. Declaration of Rights, § 16). Acts of 1919, c. 7842 (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4540 et seq.) and Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 4542, authorizing proceedings supplementary to execution and containing provision for immunity from prosecution under section 4547 and exempting property passing into hands of bona fide purchaser and exempt by law, and commitment of judgment debtor under section 4549 for contempt in failure to answer questions relative to property in another state, held not to violate Const. Declaration of Rights, § 16, providing no person shall be imprisioned for debt.
Crawford & May, of Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Stockton, Ulmer & Murchison, of Jacksonville, and Wideman & Wideman, of West Palm Beach, for respondent.
Petitioner was president of the Farmers' Bank & Trust Company of West Palm Beach, which closed its doors March 12, 1927, and was placed in the hands of a receiver. In July, 1928, the receiver for said bank brought suit against petitioner on a stock assessment. This suit was not contested, and in December, 1928, judgment by default was entered against petitioner in the sum of $29,475 principal, and $1,965 interest.
Pursuant to chapter 7842, Acts of 1919 (sections 4540 et seq., Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927), proceedings supplementary to execution were promptly instituted against petitioner, who appeared before the commissioner and answered all questions propounded to him except such questions as he was advised by counsel that he did not have to answer because they affected matters and property owned by him beyond the boundary of the state of Florida, and in consequence thereof the statute authorizing proceedings supplementary to execution could not compel him to make disclosure. As to such matters and property petitioner refused to answer. Respondent then filed his motion in the proper forum for a rule against petitioner to show cause why he should not be committed to jail for contempt in his refusal to answer said questions. A motion to quash the rule to show cause was denied, petitioner filed his answer instanter, argument and hearing was had, and the court entered its order adjudging the petitioner to be in contempt and ordering him to be confined in the county jail of Palm Beach county, Fla., until he shall have purged himself of said contempt. The contempt order was entered April 18, 1929, and was stayed till April 26, 1929, on or about which time this court granted petitioner the writ of habeas corpus and ordered that he be released upon the giving of a bond in the sum of $500 pending the determination of the writ of this court.
It is contended here by petitioner that the inquiry contemplated by the interrogation which he refused to answer was beyond the scope of the statute authorizing proceedings supplementary to execution, that the said statute did not and could not require disclosures as to property beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, and that his commitment under the rule amounted to imprisonment for debt, contrary to section 16, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida.
Proceedings supplementary to execution, while unknown to the common law, have come to occupy a very important place in our legal system and in some of the states have almost or quite superseded the equitable remedy by creditors' bill, the object of which was the discovery and subjection of property to the payment of a debt or judgment. Under our statute (section 4542, Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927), the examination provided for may be
So long as the examination is directed to matters affecting the business or financial interests of the defendant, what property he has, his right thereon, and the location thereof whether within or without the state, the examinations is pertinent and competent. The purpose of the statute is to aid judgment creditors in securing information that would lead to the satisfaction, in whole or in part, of any execution held by them. Any information which tends directly or indirectly to do this must be given. These are the bounds that must compass the examination in a proceeding like this. It cannot be employed as a predicate to pry into a judgment debtor's private affairs in the absence of reasonable or well-founded belief of concealment or fraudulent transfer of property, nor can it be used to uncover the personal affairs or relations of unfortunate debtors in search of some clue leading to the information desired. Bradley v. Burk, 81 Minn. 368, 84 N.W. 123; Burt v. Hoettinger, 28 Ind. 214, text 218; Tomlinson & Webster Mfg. Co. v. Shatto (C. C.) 34 F. 380, text 381; Towne v. Campbell, 35 Minn. 231, 28 N.W. 254. See also Winn v. Strickland, 34 Fla. 610, 16 So. 606; People ex rel. Roache v. Hanbury (Sup.) 145 N.Y.S. 483...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Jackson v. Ventas Realty, Ltd.
...may have for him that could be subjected to the execution.Young v. McKenzie, 46 So.2d 184, 185 (Fla.1950); see also Reese v. Baker, 98 Fla. 52, 123 So. 3, 4 (1929) (“the purpose of [a supplemental proceeding is] to secure information that may ... be the means of satisfying an execution alre......
-
Morgan v. Thomas
...Contrary notwithstanding." (emphasis added) 2 See, e. g., Pennock v. West, 23 Pa.Dist. R. 1062, 43 Pa.Co.R. 16 (1914); Reese v. Baker, 98 Fla. 52, 123 So. 3, (Fla.1929); Annot. 106 A.L.R. 383 ...
-
South Florida Trust Co. v. Miami Coliseum Corp.
...The constitutionality of this statute was approved, though upon another point raised against it in the recent case of Reese v. Baker, Sheriff, 98 Fla. 52, 123 So. 3. was there held that the statute is broad enough in its terms to require the defendant to make the disclosure as to any proper......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Bebinger
...Laws of 1919, now appearing as sections 4540-4549 of Compiled General Laws of 1927. As was said by Mr. Chief Justice Terrell in Reese v. Baker (Fla.) 123 So. 3, such proceedings 'while unknown to the common law, come to occupy a very important place in our legal system and in some of the st......