Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 76.24 (2025)
Dissolution of attachment.
✓ 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
76.24 Dissolution of attachment.—
(1) The defendant by motion may obtain the dissolution of a writ of attachment unless the plaintiff proves the grounds upon which the writ was issued and a reasonable probability that the final judgment in the underlying action will be rendered in the plaintiff’s favor. The court shall set down such motion for an immediate hearing. This motion shall be in lieu of the provisions of s. 76.18.
(2) On answer by defendant that any allegation in plaintiff’s motion is untrue, this issue shall be tried. If the allegation in plaintiff’s motion which is denied is not proved to be true, the attachment shall be dissolved.
(3) If the answer denies the debt demanded, the judge may require pleadings thereon on motion of either party to be filed in such time as he or she fixes.
(4) The issue, if any, raised by the pleadings shall be tried at the same time as the issue, if any, made by the answer on the special cause assigned in plaintiff’s motion for the suit. On demand of either party a jury summoned from the body of the county shall be impaneled to try the issue.
History.—s. 5, Feb. 15, 1834; RS 1656; GS 2120; RGS 3421; CGL 5274; s. 15, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 26, ch. 67-254; s. 4, ch. 78-38; s. 381, ch. 95-147.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1960–2008 · leading case: APD Holdings, Inc. v. Reidel, 865 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
APD Holdings, Inc. v. Reidel, 865 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “In addition, his testimony was relevant to the statutory considerations outlined in section 76.24, Florida Statutes (2002), "Dissolution of Attachment.”
Estudios, Proyectos e Inversiones de Centro Am., S.A. v. Swiss Bank Corp. (Overseas) S.A., 507 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “” § 76.24, Fla.Stat. (1985). On appeal EPI-CA does not challenge the trial court’s decision that SBC met its burden by proving both the grounds upon which the writ was issued, that EPICA was removing its property from the state, and that SBC enjoyed a reasonable probability of…”
Marshall-Shaw v. Ford, 755 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “§§ 76.24(1), 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997).”
Epica v. Swiss Bank Corp.(overseas) Sa, 507 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “" § 76.24, Fla. Stat. (1985). On appeal EPICA does not challenge the trial court's decision that SBC met its burden by proving both the grounds upon which the writ was issued, that EPICA was removing its property from the state, and that SBC enjoyed a reasonable probability of…”
Frasher v. Fox Distrib. of S.W. Florida, Inc., 813 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “When Frasher learned of the writ, he filed a motion for immediate dissolution pursuant to section 76.24(1). The trial court promptly scheduled a hearing on Frasher’s motion; however, two days before the hearing, Fox filed a demand for a jury trial on the motion and requested a…”
Norman Babel Mortg. Co. v. Golden Heights Land Co., 117 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). “The defendant moved to dissolve the attachment but there were no preliminary or separate proceedings or trial on application for dissolution, as authorized under § 76.24, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. In the trial of the case, which was held before the circuit judge without a jury, the…”
S. Nat'l Bank of Fort Walton Beach v. Young, 142 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). “There is no way by which this court may determine whether the chancellor’s finding with respect to the failure of plaintiff to prove the averments of its affidavit is supported by the evidence in view of the fact that the evidence has not been brought to us for our review.”
Am. Ass'n for the Advancement of Sci. v. Periodicals Publicacoes Tecnicas, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “4th DCA 2000) (citing Fla. Stat. §§ 76.24 (1), 77.07(1)). The Valerios argue Plaintiffs have failed to establish that a debt is due and have also failed to show any of the special grounds of Section 76.”
Debis Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Castaneda, 725 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). “§§ 76.24(1), 77.07 (1), Florida Statutes (1997); see Ayares-Eisenberg Perrine Datsun, Inc.”
— 76.24(1) — 3 cases
Marshall-Shaw v. Ford, 755 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “§§ 76.24(1), 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997).”
Frasher v. Fox Distrib. of S.W. Florida, Inc., 813 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “When Frasher learned of the writ, he filed a motion for immediate dissolution pursuant to section 76.24(1). The trial court promptly scheduled a hearing on Frasher’s motion; however, two days before the hearing, Fox filed a demand for a jury trial on the motion and requested a…”
Debis Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Castaneda, 725 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). “§§ 76.24(1), 77.07 (1), Florida Statutes (1997); see Ayares-Eisenberg Perrine Datsun, Inc.”
— 76.24(4) — 1 case
Frasher v. Fox Distrib. of S.W. Florida, Inc., 813 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “When Frasher learned of the writ, he filed a motion for immediate dissolution pursuant to section 76.24(1). The trial court promptly scheduled a hearing on Frasher’s motion; however, two days before the hearing, Fox filed a demand for a jury trial on the motion and requested a…”
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.