Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 77.06 (2025)

Writ; effect.

✓ 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

77.06 Writ; effect.—

(1) Service of the writ shall make garnishee liable for all debts due by him or her to defendant and for any tangible or intangible personal property of defendant in the garnishee’s possession or control at the time of the service of the writ or at any time between the service and the time of the garnishee’s answer. Service of the writ creates a lien in or upon any such debts or property at the time of service or at the time such debts or property come into the garnishee’s possession or control.

(2) The garnishee shall report in its answer and retain, subject to the provisions of s. 77.19 and subject to disposition as provided in this chapter, any deposit, account, or tangible or intangible personal property in the possession or control of such garnishee; and the answer shall state the name or names and addresses, if known to the garnishee, of the defendant and any other persons having or appearing to have an ownership interest in the involved property.

(3) In any case where a garnishee in good faith is in doubt as to whether any indebtedness or property is required by law to be included in the garnishee’s answer or retained by it, the garnishee may include and retain the same, subject to the provisions of s. 77.19 and subject to disposition as provided in this chapter, and in such case the garnishee shall not be liable for so doing to the defendant or to any other person claiming the same or any interest therein or claiming to have sustained damage on account thereof.

(4) Service of a writ on a garnishee shall render him or her liable as provided in this chapter in any fiduciary or representative capacity held by him or her if the fiduciary or representative capacity is specified in the writ.

History.—s. 1, ch. 43, 1845; RS 1670; GS 2134; RGS 3436; CGL 5289; s. 27, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 71-69; s. 1, ch. 74-98; s. 2, ch. 85-272; s. 387, ch. 95-147; s. 24, ch. 2000-258.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 51 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Arnold, Matheny, Pa v. First Am. Holdings, 982 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arnold, Matheny, Pa v. First Am. Holdings, 982 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2008). · cites it 14× “The statutory scheme [section 77.06] cannot tolerate incomplete answers wherein only some of the debts owed are disclosed and garnished.”

SEC. Bank v. Bellsouth Adv. & Pub. Corp., 679 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). · cites it 15× “§ 77.06(1) Fla.Stat. (1993). The statute states: 77.”

Bellsouth Advert. v. SEC. Bank, 698 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1997). · cites it 7× “NOTES [1] Section 77.06, Florida Statutes (1995), specifies the effect of a writ of garnishment.”

Specialty Prop. Dev., Inc. v. Ferguson Enter., Inc. (In Re Specialty Prop. Dev., Inc.), 399 B.R. 857 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008). · cites it 9× “The amendment to Fla. Stat. § 77.06 , was adopted by the Florida legislature to alter the previous decision held by the Eleventh Circuit in the case of In re Masvidal, 10 F.”

Tardif v. Congro Finanz AG (In Re Engler), 394 B.R. 598 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008). · cites it 8× “In analyzing the Florida legislature’s amendment to the statute, the Giles court *603 explained that the amendment to Fla. Stat. § 77.06 , which became effective July 1, 2000, specifically overruled the decision in In re Masvidal, 10 F.”

Walter E. Heller & Co. Se. v. Williams, 450 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). · cites it 4× “In reaching this conclusion, since the warrant is to have the "same force as a writ of garnishment," we have additionally referred to the language of the applicable garnishment statute, section 77.06, Florida Statutes (1979), which states: (1) Service of the writ shall make…”

In Re Giles, 271 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 3× “” Fla. Stat. § 77.06 (a) (last line to subsection (a) was added by the amendments).”

Henkel v. Frese, Hansen, Anderson, Hueston, & Whitehead, P.A. (In Re Newgent Golf, Inc.), 402 B.R. 424 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 5× “Fla. Stat § 77.06 (1999). In a decision binding upon this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit squarely addressed the question of whether service of a writ of garnishment created a lien in favor of the garnishor in In re Masvidal, 10 F.”

Dixie Nat'l Bank v. Chase, 485 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). · cites it 12× “We hold that under Section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (1983), the garnishee bank is liable to the garnishor creditor for all monies deposited in the omitted bank account between (a) the time the writ of garnishment is served, and (b) the time the garnishee bank files an amended…”

Int'l Travel Card, Inc. v. R. C. Hasler, Inc., 411 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). · cites it 6× “§ 77.06(2), Fla.Stat. With any other type of garnishee, notice to the judgment debtor is not statutorily required.”

Salcedo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 223 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). · cites it 6× “Wells Fargo cites no authority, and we have found none, suggesting that a claim against a negligent bank for a breach of its duty under section 77.06, Florida Statutes, can only be brought in the underlying action by the plaintiff/judgment creditor/garnishor against the…”

Daniels v. Sorriso Dental Studio, LLC, 164 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). · cites it 2× “2008) (citing § 77.06, Fla. Stat. (2002)). The effect of this obligation is “to make the garnishee the trustee of the funds of the defendant.”

Show all 51 citing cases →

— 77.06(1) — 19 cases

SEC. Bank v. Bellsouth Adv. & Pub. Corp., 679 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). “§ 77.06(1) Fla.Stat. (1993). The statute states: 77.”

Bellsouth Advert. v. SEC. Bank, 698 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1997). “NOTES [1] Section 77.06, Florida Statutes (1995), specifies the effect of a writ of garnishment.”

Walter E. Heller & Co. Se. v. Williams, 450 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). “In reaching this conclusion, since the warrant is to have the "same force as a writ of garnishment," we have additionally referred to the language of the applicable garnishment statute, section 77.06, Florida Statutes (1979), which states: (1) Service of the writ shall make…”

Dixie Nat'l Bank v. Chase, 485 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “We hold that under Section 77.06(1), Florida Statutes (1983), the garnishee bank is liable to the garnishor creditor for all monies deposited in the omitted bank account between (a) the time the writ of garnishment is served, and (b) the time the garnishee bank files an amended…”

Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. ARK Dev./Oceanview, LLC, 150 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

— 77.06(2) — 12 cases

Arnold, Matheny, Pa v. First Am. Holdings, 982 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2008). “The statutory scheme [section 77.06] cannot tolerate incomplete answers wherein only some of the debts owed are disclosed and garnished.”

SEC. Bank v. Bellsouth Adv. & Pub. Corp., 679 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). “§ 77.06(1) Fla.Stat. (1993). The statute states: 77.”

Int'l Travel Card, Inc. v. R. C. Hasler, Inc., 411 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “§ 77.06(2), Fla.Stat. With any other type of garnishee, notice to the judgment debtor is not statutorily required.”

Bellsouth Advert. v. SEC. Bank, 698 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1997). “NOTES [1] Section 77.06, Florida Statutes (1995), specifies the effect of a writ of garnishment.”

— 77.06(3) — 9 cases

Villamorey, S.A. v. Bdt Investments, Inc., 245 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Colvin, 419 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

First Am. Holdings v. Preclude, Inc., 955 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

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.