The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 56
FINAL PROCESS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 56.30

56.30 Discovery in proceedings supplementary.—

(1) In addition to any other discovery permitted under the rules of civil procedure, on the judgment creditor’s motion the court shall require the judgment debtor to appear before it or a general or special magistrate at a time and place specified by the order in the county of the judgment debtor’s residence or principal place of business to be examined concerning property subject to execution. This examination may occur before issuance of a Notice to Appear.

(2) The order shall be served in a reasonable time before the date of the examination in the manner provided for service of summons or may be served on the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor’s attorney of record as provided for service of papers in the rules of civil procedure.

(3) Testimony shall be under oath, shall be comprehensive, and cover all matters and things pertaining to the business and financial interests of the judgment debtor which may tend to show what property the judgment debtor has and its location. Any testimony tending directly or indirectly to aid in satisfying the execution is admissible. A corporate judgment debtor must attend and answer by a designee with knowledge or an identified officer or manager who may be specified in the order. Examination of witnesses shall be as at trial, and any party may call other witnesses to be examined concerning property that may be subject to execution.

History.—s. 19, ch. 2016-33.

F.S. 56.30 on Google Scholar

F.S. 56.30 on Casetext

Amendments to 56.30

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 56.30

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 56.30.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

LONGO, v. ASSOCIATED LIMOUSINE SERVICES, INC., 236 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Moreover, section 56.30 allows for the examination of the judgment debtor to occur before a third party . . . See § 56.30, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS AND THE TRUSTEES THEREOF, v. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, 760 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 34:11-56.30. . . .

ACCURSO, v. INFRA- RED SERVICES, INC., 23 F. Supp. 3d 494 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

. . . order granting partial summary judgment"); Mot. 8 (purportedly citing 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.30 . . . and which, if it did, would fall within the summary judgment volume (11) regarding Rule 56 (hence § 56.30 . . .

PKF MARK III INC. E. P. L. A. v. FOUNDATION FOR FAIR CONTRACTING St. a k a G. P. FFC LLC, 496 F. App'x 260 (3d Cir. 2012)

. . . . §§ 34:11-56.25; 34:11-56.26(9); 34:11-56.28; 34:11-56.30. . . .

R. I. INC. d b a a a a v. McCARTHY, NJDOL NJDOL E. NJDOL, 483 F. App'x 745 (3d Cir. 2012)

. . . . §§ 34:11-56.30 to -56.31. . . .

STRUMSKY, v. WASHINGTON POST COMPANY,, 842 F. Supp. 2d 215 (D.D.C. 2012)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed. 1998); see, e.g., Weiner v. . . .

THIELEN s v. GMAC MORTGAGE CORP. s, 671 F. Supp. 2d 947 (E.D. Mich. 2009)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed. 1998)) (internal quotations omitted). . . .

ALVORD INVESTMENTS, LLC, v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., 660 F. Supp. 2d 850 (W.D. Tenn. 2009)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed. 1998)); see Yeary v. Goodwill Indus. . . .

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON,, 574 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2009)

. . . As the factual basis for the plea, the government explained that 56.30 grams of cocaine base were seized . . .

ZELAYA, v. UNICCO SERVICE COMPANY,, 587 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed. 1998); see, e.g., Faibisch v. . . .

NATIONAL SHOPMEN PENSION FUND, v. DISA d b a, 583 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.D.C. 2008)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed.1998); see, e.g., Weiner v. . . .

In HARCHAR, s s v. s, 393 B.R. 160 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2008)

. . . differently insofar as it concerns the applicability of the evidence. 11 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.30 . . .

In PERRY a k a v. EMC, 388 B.R. 330 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2008)

. . . Moore Et Al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.30[4] (3d ed.1998)). . . .

L. MARQUEZ, v. CABLE ONE, INC., 463 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2006)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.30[4] at p. 56-230 (3d ed.2006) (“[c]ourts have concluded that a . . .

MASCOL, v. E L TRANSPORTATION, INC., 387 F. Supp. 2d 87 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed.1997). . . .

AHMED, v. ASHCROFT,, 388 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 2004)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[8][e] (3d ed.2004). . . .

MCKENNA, v. N. WRIGHT, P. T. J., 386 F.3d 432 (2d Cir. 2004)

. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[3][b]; see also id. § 56.30[3][d]. . . .

UTAH GOSPEL MISSION, J. v. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a C., 316 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Utah 2004)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.30[4] (3d ed.1997). . . . .

ALVAREZ SEPULVEDA, v. COLON MATOS,, 306 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.P.R. 2004)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 3D § 56.30[7][c], at 56-236 (2003). . . .

DESARDOUIN, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., 285 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. Conn. 2003)

. . . consider only the allegations contained on the face of the complaint....” 11 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.30 . . .

SON, CR B- v. COAL EQUITY, INC., 293 B.R. 392 (W.D. Ky. 2003)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed.1998). . . .

B. ANDERSON, v. LANCASTER AVIATION, INC. a M. In- a a a Co. a, 220 F. Supp. 2d 524 (M.D.N.C. 2002)

. . . 177 F.3d 507, 514 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting 11 James William Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30 . . .

A. HELWIG, S. R. E. v. VENCOR, INC. W. W. III R. T. L. H. Jr., 251 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . Moore Et Al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed.1998). . . .

NEVILLE, v. CLASSIC GARDENS,, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (S.D. Ga. 2001)

. . . . § 56.30[4] (3rd ed 2000); Bordeaux v. Lynch, 958 F.Supp. 77, 82 (N.D.N.Y.1997). . . .

SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN ROOFING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. C. DAVIS ROOFING, INC. a, 123 F. Supp. 2d 402 (E.D. Mich. 2000)

. . . . of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting James Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 56.30 . . .

UNITED STATES v. IN U. S. CURRENCY,, 203 F.R.D. 308 (S.D. Ohio 2000)

. . . . of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507 (6th Cir.1999), quoting James Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30 . . .

E. BUTLER, v. AETNA U. S. HEALTHCARE, INC., 109 F. Supp. 2d 856 (S.D. Ohio 2000)

. . . . of Virginia, 177 F.3d 507 (6th Cir.1999), quoting James Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30 . . .

In DOW CORNING CORPORATION,, 250 B.R. 298 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000)

. . . Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505; 11 Moore’s Federal Practice, §§ 56.13[3] and 56.30[7] . . .

A. HELWIG, S. R. E. v. VENCOR, INC. W. W. III R. T. L. H. Jr., 210 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2000)

. . . MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 56.30[4] (3d ed.1998); see also Greenberg, 177 F.3d at 514 ( . . .

GREENBERG v. THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA,, 177 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1999)

. . . MooRe et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed.1998). . . .

MORELLI, v. CEDEL,, 141 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1998)

. . . Moóre et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30[4] (3d ed.1997). . . .

B. McCULLEY E. v. ANGLERS COVE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 977 F. Supp. 177 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

. . . Defendant should have moved for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), 11 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.30 . . .

R. KING, v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, E. E. D. M. Al, 979 F. Supp. 582 (N.D. Ill. 1996)

. . . that 194,438 of the 345,307 Hispanic residents in the City of Chicago were United States citizens, or 56.30% . . .

G. BURTON, REPUBLICAN PARTY, T. v. J. SHEHEEN, A. E. T. Y. A. L. I. STATEWIDE REAPPORTIONMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, v. A. CAMPBELL, Jr. I. BLANTON, A. E. Y. A. v. A. CAMPBELL, Jr., 793 F. Supp. 1329 (D.S.C. 1992)

. . . 72.15 65.91 -18.86 55.71 57.07 55.92 51.91 -08.84 54.73 52.18 49.92 47.30 +00.75 60.04 55.25 60.55 56.30 . . .

NORWOOD, v. CHARLOTTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER,, 720 F. Supp. 543 (W.D.N.C. 1989)

. . . Michele Nethercott 52.50 hours Rhonda Lipkin 72.00 hours Bernadette Moffat 40.40 hours Kelly McGrath 56.30 . . . 7,312.00 Nethercott 52.50 $40 2,100.00 Lipkin 72.00 $40 2,880.00 Moffet 40.40 $40 1,616.00 McGrath 56.30 . . .

NORWOOD, v. CHARLOTTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER,, 653 F. Supp. 1350 (W.D.N.C. 1987)

. . . Michele Nethercott 52.50 hours Rhonda Lipkin 72.00 hours Bernadette Moffat 40.40 hours Kelly McGrath 56.30 . . . hours @$40 per hour— 2,880.00 Bernadette Moffet 40.40 hours @ $40 per hour— 1,616.00 Kelly McGrath 56.30 . . .

DANNY KRESKY ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, v. MAGID,, 716 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1983)

. . . The district court eliminated 46 of the 56.30 hours for Kramer and all 11 of the hours for Needle for . . .

In STERLING NAVIGATION CO. LTD., 6 B.R. 616 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1980)

. . . Cargo - 4,834 EXHIBIT C Shipment - Quantity -Rate per L/T 3/31/73 9,324 L/T $54.04 5/29/73 8,552.9 L/T 56.30 . . . Additional Allocation Total Rate Amount 3/31/73 3,500 L/T 3,500 $54.04 $189,140 5/29/73 3,500 L/T 3,500 56.30 . . .

DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, 439 F. Supp. 55 (E.D. Pa. 1977)

. . . In 1973, 56.30% of the blacks worked in the five “undesirable” clusters, while only 32.93% of the whites . . .

F. URBANO, No. v. W. McCORKLE,, 346 F. Supp. 51 (D.N.J. 1972)

. . . (e) $56.30 lost pay from the work program. . . .

S. R. L. C. V. v., 66 Cust. Ct. 612 (Cust. Ct. 1971)

. . . 36.30 “Gracias” Mexico pack; Jumbo crates: 36 50. 30 tO O 45 40. 30 to O “Pearl”; Batley crates: 27 56.30 . . .

M. SMITH, v. J. CREMINS, Jr. F. Jr., 308 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1962)

. . . Los Angeles Municipal Code § 56.30. . See Marshall v. Sawyer, 301 F.2d 639, 646 (9th Cir. 1962). . . . .

In UNITED CIGAR STORES CO. OF AMERICA. In CIGAR STORES REALTY HOLDINGS,, 21 F. Supp. 869 (S.D.N.Y. 1937)

. . . the Debenture Holders’ Committee, for a balance of $15,535.34 on a bill for services, together with $56.30 . . .