Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 56.13 (2025)
Executions; forfeiture of forthcoming bond.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
56.13 Executions; forfeiture of forthcoming bond.—Should the execution remain unpaid, and the parties to the bond fail to produce such property by the day specified, said bond shall be returned to the court from which the execution issued, as forfeited; and the clerk, or the court if it has no clerk, shall enter up judgment forthwith against the sureties for the value fixed as aforesaid of the property so bonded, or if the value of the property exceed the amount of the execution, then for the amount of the execution, and execution shall issue therefor. Such proceedings shall not affect the liability of the principal upon the original judgment.
Note.—Former s. 55.35.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1965–2004 · leading case: Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Markham v. Lerner (In Re Diagnostic Instrument Grp., Inc.), 283 B.R. 87 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002).
Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Markham v. Lerner (In Re Diagnostic Instrument Grp., Inc.), 283 B.R. 87 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002). “Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, § 56.13[3] at 56-151 (2001) (“Moore’s”). The court will determine if there is a triable issue of fact in light of the “actual quantum and quality of proof’ the non-moving party must meet at trial.”
In Re Ballato, 318 B.R. 205 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2004). “Moore’s Federal Practice 3d (“Moore’s”), § 56.13[3] at 56-151 (2001). The court will determine if there is a triable issue of fact in light of the “actual quantum and quality of proof’ the non-moving party must meet at trial.”
Visingardi v. Tirone, 178 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). “The first sentence quoted above relates to the burden to show absence of triable issues, citing 6 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.13 (2d ed. 1953). The second sentence of the quotation states that the one who has the "burden of proof" (on summary judgment) will lose if he fails to…”
Francis v. Gen. Motors Corp., 287 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). “, § 56.13, wherein it is stated: "The well-settled rule is that cross-motions for summary judgment do not warrant the court in granting summary judgment unless one of the moving parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law upon facts that are not genuinely disputed.”
Marvin Mitchell Studio, Inc. v. Al R. McFadyen Assocs., Inc., 229 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). “Section 56.13, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is quoted as follows: “Should the execution remain unpaid and the parties to the bond fail to produce such property by the day specified, said bond shall be returned to the court from which the execution issued, as forfeited.”
In Re Hicks, 261 B.R. 306 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001). “Practice, §§ 56.13-.14 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) (discussing burdens of parties and evidentiary requirements of summary judgment).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.