Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 77.031 (2025)

Issuance of writ before judgment.

✓ 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

77.031 Issuance of writ before judgment.—Before judgment has been obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant:

(1) A writ of garnishment shall be issued by the court or by the clerk on order of the court.

(2) To obtain issuance of the writ, the plaintiff, or the plaintiff’s agent or attorney, shall file in the court where the action is pending a verified motion or affidavit alleging by specific facts the nature of the cause of action; the amount of the debt and that the debt for which the plaintiff sues is just, due, and unpaid; that the garnishment is not sued out to injure either the defendant or the garnishee; and that the plaintiff believes that the defendant will not have in his or her possession, after execution is issued, tangible or intangible property in this state and in the county in which the action is pending on which a levy can be made sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim. The writ of garnishment shall set forth a notice to the defendant of the right to an immediate hearing for dissolution of such writ pursuant to s. 77.07. Upon issuance of the writ of garnishment, the clerk of the court shall provide by mail a copy of the writ to the defendant.

(3) Except when the plaintiff has had an attachment writ issued, no writ of garnishment before judgment shall issue until the plaintiff, or the plaintiff’s agent or attorney, gives a bond with surety to be approved by the clerk payable to the defendant in at least double the amount of the debt demanded, conditioned to pay all costs, damages, and attorney’s fees that the defendant sustains in consequence of the plaintiff’s improperly suing out the writ of garnishment. A garnishment bond is not void or voidable because of an informality in it, nor shall the obligors be discharged because of the informality, even though the garnishment is dissolved because of the informality.

(4) The motion or pleading need not negative any exemptions of the defendant.

History.—s. 11, ch. 43, 1845; RS 1680; s. 1, ch. 4393, 1895; GS 2144; s. 2, ch. 6910, 1915; RGS 3446; CGL 5299; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 27, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 83-97; s. 8, ch. 85-80; s. 384, ch. 95-147.

Note.—Former s. 77.18.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: APR Energy, LLC v. First Inv. Grp. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

APR Energy, LLC v. First Inv. Grp. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 9× “Fla. Stat. § 77.031 . . Fla. Stat. §§ 726.”

In re Collins, 600 B.R. 108 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2019). · cites it 6× “(2018) (attachment); § 77.031, Fla. Stat. (2018) (prejudgment garnishment); 13 Fla.”

Ray Lein Const., Inc. v. Wainwright, 346 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1977). · cites it 3× “Section 77.031, Florida Statutes (1975), allows a writ to issue without judicial supervision.”

Weinstein v. Aisenberg, 758 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). · cites it 2× “Aisenberg did not pursue the relief available under the prejudgment garnishment statute, section 77.031, Florida Statutes (1999). Nor did Aisenberg seek an injunction incident to an action to impose a constructive trust on the bank accounts.”

Ronald N. Dubner v. Frank Ferraro, 242 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 77.031(3), Fla. Stat. (2017). They concluded, “equity dictate[d] that [the broker] should unfreeze the various [] accounts and 2 doing so would greatly serve the public interest.”

Cerna v. Swiss Bank Corp.(Overseas), SA, 503 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). · cites it 2× “It is first clear that prejudgment attachment properly lies in favor of a creditor, such as the bank, when it appears that the debtor is "fraudulently disposing of his property" to avoid payment of a debt.”

Bunton v. First Nat'l Bank of Tampa, 394 F. Supp. 793 (M.D. Fla. 1975). · cites it 7× “§ 1343 (3) to declare unconstitutional the Florida statutory pre-judgment garnishment procedure as set out in Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 77.031, 77.04, and 77.06 et seq.”

Frio Ice, SA v. SunFruit, 724 F. Supp. 1373 (S.D. Fla. 1989). · cites it 2× “Fla.Stat. § 77.031; see also Cerna v. Swiss Bank Corp.”

Barbouti v. Lysandrou, 559 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). · cites it 2× “See § 77.031, Fla. Stat. (1989). [1] The trial judge subsequently denied the defendants' motion to dissolve the garnishment.”

Garel & Jacobs, PA v. Wick, 683 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). · cites it 4× “Section 77.031(2), Florida Statutes (1995) explicitly provides that a motion to procure such writ "shall [be] file[d] in the court where the action is pending.”

Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). · cites it 4× “Incident thereto, the counterclaimant in his motion for writ of garnishment stated that the debt for which counterclaiment sued therein was just, due and unpaid (§ 77.031(1) Fla. Stat., F.S.A.) and filed a bond (a cash bond in this instance), conditioned as provided for by § 77.”

Niesz v. Gehris, 418 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). · cites it 2× “05, Florida Statutes (1981); as to garnishment before judgment, see section 77.031, Florida Statutes (1981).”

Show all 26 citing cases →

— 77.031(1) — 2 cases

Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). “Incident thereto, the counterclaimant in his motion for writ of garnishment stated that the debt for which counterclaiment sued therein was just, due and unpaid (§ 77.031(1) Fla. Stat., F.S.A.) and filed a bond (a cash bond in this instance), conditioned as provided for by § 77.”

Matter of Rettemnier, 113 B.R. 757 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1990).

— 77.031(2) — 4 cases

Garel & Jacobs, PA v. Wick, 683 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). “Section 77.031(2), Florida Statutes (1995) explicitly provides that a motion to procure such writ "shall [be] file[d] in the court where the action is pending.”

Bunton v. First Nat'l Bank of Tampa, 394 F. Supp. 793 (M.D. Fla. 1975). “§ 1343 (3) to declare unconstitutional the Florida statutory pre-judgment garnishment procedure as set out in Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 77.031, 77.04, and 77.06 et seq.”

Power Rental OP CO, LLC v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 77.031(3) — 5 cases

Ronald N. Dubner v. Frank Ferraro, 242 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “§ 77.031(3), Fla. Stat. (2017). They concluded, “equity dictate[d] that [the broker] should unfreeze the various [] accounts and 2 doing so would greatly serve the public interest.”

In re Collins, 600 B.R. 108 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2019). “(2018) (attachment); § 77.031, Fla. Stat. (2018) (prejudgment garnishment); 13 Fla.”

Alan Kent Little v. Bath & Kitchen Boutique, LLC, Etc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).

Power Rental OP CO, LLC v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

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.