Varveris v. Carbonell
| Decision Date | 06 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | 00-129 |
| Parties | NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. MARIE LYDIA VARVERIS, Appellant, vs. ALBERTO M. CARBONELL, P.A., Appellee. CASE NO. 3D00-129 JULY TERM, A.D. 2000 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT Opinion filed |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
An appeal from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County,
Juan Ramirez, Jr., and Ronald Dresnick, Judges.
Segredo & Weisz and Michel O. Weisz, for appellant.
Alberto M. Carbonell, for appellee.
Before COPE, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.
Marie Varveris appeals a judgment entered in proceedings supplementary to execution directing the sale of her property. We reverse the judgment.
Alberto Carbonell, P.A., sought to recover on a money judgment entered against Alexander Varveris, Marie's husband. In proceedings supplementary, § 56.29, Fla. Stat. (1999), Carbonell sought to implead Marie in order to set aside as fraudulent a transfer of certain real property. The property, originally titled in Marie and Alexander's name, was transferred to Marie's name alone. See §§ 726.101-.112, Fla. Stat. (1999). Carbonell, however, was not able to serve Marie. Although service of process, noticing Marie of the proceedings to set aside the transfer, was not effected, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, impleaded Marie as a defendant, and found that the transfer was fraudulent. Based on that finding, the court ordered the property sold to satisfy the outstanding judgment.
On appeal, Marie correctly argues that the judgment may not stand because she was not properly brought before the court as an impleader defendant. It is well-settled law that
no rights of [impleader defendants] should be adjudged to be affected, impaired, or finally cut off by any order of court made in such proceedings supplementary to execution, unless such third parties have been first fully impleaded and brought into the case as actual parties to the proceeding, and, as such, given an opportunity to fully and fairly present their claims as parties entitled to a full and fair hearing after the making up of definite issues to be tried, and not as mere spectators or bystanders in the cause.
Machado v. Foreign Trade, Inc., 544 So. 2d 1061, 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)(quoting Ryan's Furniture Exchange v. McNair, 120 Fla. 109, 120, 162 So. 483, 487 (1935)); 24A Executions Fla. Jur. 2d § 108 (1995 & Supp. 2000). See State ex rel. Phoenix Tax Title Corp. v. Viney, 120 Fla. 657, 163 So. 57 (1935); see also Exceletech, Inc. v. Williams, 597 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1992); Patterson v. Venne, 594 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Junca v. Marine Dealers Unlimited Corp., 706 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Here, it is undisputed that Marie was not served personally or by a substituted method sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Thus, the judgment must be reversed as she was not properly brought into the proceedings supplementary as a party.
Marie's contention that reversal of the judgment mandates vacation of the temporary injunction is without...
To continue reading
Request your trial