Reeves v. Don L. Tullis & Associates, Inc., U-223
| Decision Date | 08 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. U-223,U-223 |
| Citation | 305 So.2d 813 |
| Parties | Esther B. REEVES, Appellant, v. DON L. TULLIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jon S. Rosenberg, of Marvin E. Newman and Jon S. Rosenberg, Orlando, for appellant.
Fred C. Isaac of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Issac, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This appeal arises out of a garnishment action.
In 1959 one Roy A. Akins and wife (who will hereinafter be referred to as Akins), being the owners of certain improved real property commonly known as 3400 West Colonial Drive in Orlando, Florida, entered into a lease agreement by which that property was leased to Reeves-Kenworth Truck Sales Co., a Florida corporation. Hugh R. Reeves, Jr. was president of the corporation and Esther B. Reeves was secretary. On December 18, 1967 the corporation leased the property to Esther B. Reeves. Both leases were recorded. On the date of the execution of the latter lease, December 18, 1967, an 'Assignment of Lease Agreement' was entered into whereby the corporation assigned 'all of its right, title and interest of every nature whatsoever' in the lease from Akins to Esther B. Reeves. That assignment was also signed and acknowledged by Akins. Further, on the same date, there was held a joint meeting of the stockholders and directors of the corporation, the minutes of which meeting recite, inter alia, the following:
'The President made motion that the corporation shall assign and transfer all its right, title and interest in its lease to the property at 3400 W. Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida leased from Roy A. Akins and Grace M. Akins to Esther B. Reeves and from the date of said transfer and assignment and signing of the Lease Agreement between the corporation and Esther B. Reeves that Esther B. Reeves would be responsible for all and other payments due Roy A. Akins and Grace Akins, and further that Esther B. Reeves should make all of such rent payments and other payments called for directly to Roy A. Akins and Grace Akins beginning January 1968.
'Upon motion duly made and carried, the above resolution was adopted.'
The evidence reveals that the assignment and recitations of the corporate minutes were given effect in practice and that from that day forward all payments were made under the lease directly by Esther B. Reeves to the Akins.
On April 14, 1970, Don L. Tullis and Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as appellee, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Duval County against Reeves Truck Center, Inc. (formerly Reeves-Kenworth Truck Sales Co., Inc.) and Hugh R. Reeves, Jr. The subject matter of that suit was a promissory note dated January 24, 1969. Final judgment was entered on February 2, 1971 against both Reeves Truck Center, Inc. and Hugh R. Reeves, Jr.
On January 2, 1973, at the behest of Don L. Tullis and Associates, Inc., a writ of garnishment was caused to be served upon Esther B. Reeves, as garnishee. The garnishee filed an answer denying any indebtedness to either Reeves Truck Center, Inc. or Hugh R. Reeves, Jr., to which answer appellee filed a traverse. In due course the matter was heard before the court without a jury whereupon a final judgment was entered in favor of the garnishee and the writ of garnishment was dissolved. Upon motion for rehearing the trial judge vacated his prior final judgment and entered judgment in favor of appellee and against the garnishee, appellant here. This appeal resulted.
The proper procedure for resolving issues incident to garnishment proceedings is set forth in Chapter 77 Florida Statutes. F.S. § 77.03 provides for the issuance of a writ of garnishment at the behest of a judgment holder. F.S. § 77.04 prescribes the form of the writ and a model is set forth as Form 1.907 pursuant to Rule 1.900 RCP. It is important to note the language of the writ as it is the pleading which initially sets the stage for any issues to be formed. The writ requires the guarnishee to file and serve an answer 'stating whether the garnishee is indebted to defendant, at the time of the answer or was indebted at the time of service of the writ, or at any time between such times'.
F.S. § 77.06...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Security Bank, N.A. v. BellSouth Advertising & Pub. Corp.
...a garnishee than would have been available to the judgment debtor in a proceeding against the garnishee. Reeves v. Don L. Tullis and Assoc.,Inc., 305 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). United Presidential Life Insurance Co. v. King, 361 So.2d 710, 713 (Fla.1978). The garnishee is not, by servic......
-
Sans Souci v. Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums, Dept. of Business Regulation, AG-137
...circumstances, can also be a novation. See, e.g., Moring v. Miller, 330 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and Reeves v. Don L. Tullis & Associates, Inc., 305 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One Florida court has observed that "[a] novation is a mutual agreement between the parties concerned for t......
-
Alejandre v. Telefonica Larga Distancia
...relationship. See Live Supply, Inc. v. C&S Plumbing, Inc., 402 So. 2d 505, 506-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981);21 Reeves v. Don L. Tullis & Assocs., 305 So. 2d 813, 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (placing burden on plaintiff to prove truth of allegation made in reply to garnishee's answer). This burden is ......
-
Matter of Armando Gerstel, Inc.
...of the writ to be placed in any worse condition than had the primary debtor brought suit upon the claim. Reeves v. Don L. Tullis & Assoc., Inc., 305 So.2d 813, 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The garnishor merely steps into the primary debtor's shoes. Coyle v. Pam American Bank of Miami, 377 So.2d......