HARBORSIDE SUITES, LLC, v. ROSEN,, 261 So. 3d 664 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . the debtor challenging the truth of the allegations in the creditor's petition for the writ, see § 77.07 . . . Either method requires a trial of the issues. §§ 77.07, 77.16. . . .

VILLAMOREY, S. A. v. BDT INVESTMENTS, INC., 245 So. 3d 909 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Upon receipt of BDT's notice, Villamorey filed a motion to dissolve BDT's writ pursuant to section 77.07 . . . Villamorey account at Bank, Villamorey was not required to file an affidavit before exercising its section 77.07 . . . other person having an ownership interest in the property, as disclosed by the garnishee's answer . § 77.07 . . . Moreover, irrespective of which statutory procedure is invoked- section 77.07(2) or 77.16(1) -the result . . . plaintiff's motion which is denied is not proved to be true, the garnishment shall be dissolved.... § 77.07 . . .

MARTINEZ, Jr. M. D. v. GOLISTING. COM, INC. d b a, 233 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . 121 So.3d 83, 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (refusing to extend the express terms of the version of section 77.07 . . .

J. KANE, N. P. A. v. STEWART TILGHMAN FOX BIANCHI, P. A. a C. P. A. a S. P. A. a, 197 So. 3d 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . dissolved when plaintiff failed to file a motion for final judgment within 6 months, as required by section 77.07 . . . second writs, finding that allowing a second writ would “ ‘eir-cumvent[ ] the intent and meaning of § 77.07 . . . another subsequent writ of garnishment after a prior writ of garnishment was dissolved pursuant to § 77.07 . . . Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that “there is no basis in the language of section 77.07 . . . The language of section 222.12, like that of section 77.07(5) (at issue in Akerman), does not provide . . .

REGIONS BANK, v. S. HYMAN,, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1234 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . parties (defendants’ wives and Rodgers Revocable Trust) to file motions to dissolve pursuant to Ch. 77.07 . . . asserting an ownership interest, but did not file a motion to dissolve the writs, in accord with F.S. § 77.07 . . . Ch. 77.07(2), Fla. . . .

APR ENERGY, LLC, a v. FIRST INVESTMENT GROUP CORPORATION, a a k a a, 88 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . notice to the defendant of the right to an immediate hearing for dissolution of such writ pursuant to s. 77.07 . . .

STANSELL, G. T. C. I. N. v. REVOLUTIONARY ARMED FORCES OF COLOMBIA, FARC a N. A. S. A. G. T. I. C. N. v. FARC U. S. C. W. S. A. ALM MLA LLC, G. T. v. FARC II, C. W. G. T. v. FARC G. T. C. I. v. FARC U. S. G. T. C. I. N. v. FARC, 771 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 77.07(2) (permitting “any other person having an ownership interest in [garnished] property” to move . . . Stat. § 77.07(2). . . . because the Partnerships received actual notice and were able to contest the allegations as provided in § 77.07 . . .

APR ENERGY, LLC, a v. FIRST INVESTMENT GROUP CORPORATION, a a k a a, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1227 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . notice to the defendant of the right to an immediate hearing for dissolution of such writ pursuant to s. 77.07 . . .

MERRIMAN INVESTMENTS, LLC, v. UJOWUNDU,, 123 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . the debtor challenging the truth of the allegations in the creditor’s petition for the writ, see § 77.07 . . . Either method requires a trial of the issues. §§ 77.07, 77.16. In this case, Ms. . . . Ujowundu’s section 77.07 challenge to the veracity of the allegations in the petition for garnishment . . . See § 77.07(1); Doug Sears Consulting, Inc. v. . . .

AKERMAN SENTERFITT EIDSON, P. A. a a o De S. A. v. VALUE SEAFOOD, INC. V. LLC,, 121 So. 3d 83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . February 2012, the Garnishees filed a Notice of Dissolution of Writ of Garnishment pursuant to section 77.07 . . . The trial court further found that it would be “circumventing the intent and meaning of § 77.07(5)” to . . . We further find that there is no basis in the language of section 77.07(5) to support the trial court . . . Section 77.07 was amended in 2005 to add subsection (5), which states as follows: If the plaintiff fails . . . We cannot extend the express terms of section 77.07(5) to hold that a subsequent writ of garnishment . . .

USAMERIBANK, a v. KLEPAL, Jr. CB, 100 So. 3d 56 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . . § 77.07, Fla. Stat. (2010); see Malowney v. Fed. . . .

MARTINEZ, v. REPUBLIC OF CUBA, v. ABC C T, 708 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . the defendant to move to dissolve the writ within a specific time period or risk being in default, § 77.07 . . .

MILLIKEN COMPANY, a v. HAIMA GROUP CORPORATION, No. v., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 77.07(2) and Fla. . . . Stat. §§ 77.07(2), 77.16(1). Specifically, Fla. . . . . § 77.07(2) provides: “[if] any allegation in plaintiffs motion is not proven to be true, the garnishment . . .

ZIVITZ, v. ZIVITZ P. A., 16 So. 3d 841 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Under Robert’s combined interpretation of sections 77.041 and 77.07(2) of the garnishment statute, failing . . . He first argued that the court’s ruling misinterpreted sections 77.041 and 77.07(2). . . . Robert next argues that pursuant to section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, the only effect of the garnishment . . .

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, v. PERIODICALS PUBLICACOES TECNICAS,, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (S.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . §§ 76.24(1), 77.07(1)). . . .

SOSA, C C v. LEGGETT PLATT, INC., 969 So. 2d 540 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Though he incorrectly filed the motion pursuant to section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, it is clear from . . .

ZAYAS, v. PUERTO RICO,, 451 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D.P.R. 2006)

. . . That is, $622.25 at $0.25/copy; $77.07 paid to Sir Speedy; and $116.80 paid to Doubleday. . . .

BNP PARIBAS, a a v. A. WYNNE, III, A. III No., 944 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . . § 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. . . . Under section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, the deadline to move to dissolve the writ is twenty days from . . . nullity by the court, and the proceedings shall be in a default posture as to the party involved.” § 77.07 . . .

WINDSOR- THOMAS GROUP, INC. v. PARKER, 782 So. 2d 478 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 77.07(1), Florida Statutes (1997), permits a defendant to move to dissolve the writ, apparently . . . under any legal basis, and section 77.07(2) permits “any other person having an ownership interest in . . . Moreover, section 77.07(4) allows the issues raised in a defendant’s motion for dissolution to be tried . . . As a result, nothing in section 77.07 prohibits American General from filing a motion or answer arguing . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 773 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2000)

. . . is entered, notice to the defendant of the right to an immediate hearing under sections 73.031 and 77.07 . . .

M. RUDD, v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, FL,, 761 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . the recipient that he or she must move to dissolve the writ within the time period set forth in s. 77.07 . . . Tech., Inc., 720 So.2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); § 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . See § 77.07(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . ’s position that Rudd could never file a motion to dissolve the writ as was his right under section 77.07 . . . Rudd’s right to properly move to dissolve the writ under section 77.07(2) could not be triggered where . . .

MARSHALL- SHAW, v. FORD,, 755 So. 2d 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . §§ 76.24(1), 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

DOUG SEARS CONSULTING, INC. a d b a D. v. ATS SERVICES, INC. a d b a, 752 So. 2d 668 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . served a Motion to Dissolve Prejudgment Writs of Garnishment (Motion to Dissolve) pursuant to section 77.07 . . . Section 77.07 requires the trial court to dissolve a writ of garnishment “unless the petitioner proves . . . Under section 77.07, Sears Consulting was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing and the burden was upon . . . not admissible to prove facts in issue at an evidentiary hearing such as the one required by section 77.07 . . . We also disagree with ATS’s position because it is contrary to the clear language of section 77.07 and . . .

MALOWNEY, L. v. FEDERAL COLLECTION DEPOSIT GROUP, K., 193 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999)

. . . The required notice must advise the judgment debtor that he may move to dissolve the writ under § 77.07 . . . Pursuant to § 77.07 of the Florida Code, a judgment debtor may, by motion, obtain dissolution of a writ . . .

CADLE COMPANY, v. G G ASSOCIATES, L., 741 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . the motion was “in substance, application, and effect” a motion to dissolve filed pursuant to section 77.07 . . . Section 77.07(2) contemplates that the issues and defenses raised by a defendant in a motion to dissolve . . .

ALEJANDRE, v. TELEFONICA LARGA DISTANCIA DE PUERTO RICO, INC. MCI, 183 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 1999)

. . . Stat. ch. 77.07(2) (1997). . . . Stat. ch. 77.07(2) ] is granted only to the defendant [ — i.e., the judgment debtor — ] and any other . . . Stat. ch. 77.07(2) and then asserting that it has standing to appeal the denial of that motion to this . . .

DEBIS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. a v. CASTANEDA a k a C. a k a a k a a k a M. a k a C. a k a J A a, 725 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . . §§ 76.24(1), 77.07 (1), Florida Statutes (1997); see Ayares-Eisenberg Perrine Datsun, Inc. v. . . .

REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, a v. ROYAL FLORAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., 726 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); Pleasant Valley Farms & Morey Condensery Co. v. . . .

NAVON, KOPELMAN O DONNELL, P. A. v. SYNNEX INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 720 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . . § 77.07(2). . . . specifically in the garnishee’s answer, its identity was disclosed sufficiently to meet the requirements of § 77.07 . . .

BEAL BANK, SSB, v. ALMAND ASSOCIATES,, 710 So. 2d 608 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . . § 77.07(2), Fla. Stat.; Beardsley v. Admiral Insurance Co., 647 So.2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 682 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1996)

. . . is entered, notice to the defendant of the right to an immediate hearing under sections 73.031 and 77.07 . . .

L. BEARDSLEY, v. ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 647 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . See generally § 77.07, Fla.Stat. (1993). . . . advise the recipient that he must move to dissolve the writ within the time period set forth in s. 77.07 . . .

In MARTEC CORPORATION, L. GASS, Jr. v. G. FRIEDMAN,, 168 B.R. 427 (S.D. Fla. 1994)

. . . . §§ 77.07 and 77.-16, he was entitled to a trial on the ownership of those accounts prior to the garnishment . . .

CLARENDON GROUP, LTD. v. LAHUS II, INC. III, N. A., 601 So. 2d 630 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Elson, 263 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); § 77.07, Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, L. v. BRITISH- AMERICAN CORPORATION, a a a a, 755 F. Supp. 1314 (E.D.N.C. 1991)

. . . 1990 = 114.71%/14 = 8.193%. 264,727.23 New principal. 3,495,866.38 AIR 5 May 1990-28 January 1991 == 77.07% . . .

BARBOUTI, v. LYSANDROU N. A. LYSANDROU, v. BARBOUTI,, 559 So. 2d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . notice to the defendant of his right to an immediate hearing for dissolution of such writ pursuant to s. 77.07 . . . court’s discretionary conclusion that Barbouti had a reasonable probability of success on the merits. § 77.07 . . .

CRUZ, v. STATE WIDE COLLECTION CORPORATION, a, 516 So. 2d 117 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . See § 77.07(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). . . .

S. MATTHEWS, v. E. WOOD G. P. A., 485 So. 2d 472 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . With respect to the provision for dissolution of the writ, section 77.07(1) now provides: The defendant . . .

ATLANTIC NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA v. TRUMBORE FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF PALM BEACH COUNTY ATLANTIC NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA v. TRUMBORE, FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, 9 Fla. Supp. 2d 156 (Fla. Cty. Ct. 1984)

. . . Section 77.07(2) Florida Statutes (1983); International Travel Card Inc. v. R.C. . . . The grounds for a defendant’s motion to dissolve are contained in Section 77.07(2). . . . Once a defendant has made a 77.07(2) challenge to the truthfulness of an allegation contained in a plaintiffs . . . Section 77.07(1) Florida Statutes (1983). . . .

In O. DUGGAN CO. J. DUGGAN, H. P. J. v. O. DUGGAN CO., 28 B.R. 820 (Bankr. D. Del. 1983)

. . . Tract II Plaintiffs’ Second Mortgage on Tract I Principal $281,296.08 Interest to January 13, 1983 at $77.07 . . .

INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL CARD, INC. a v. R. C. HASLER, INC. a, 411 So. 2d 215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Based upon our interpretation of § 77.07(1) and (2), we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the . . . Instead, the Court found that the motion was untimely under § 77.07(2). . . . Hasler argues, in essence, that if a challenge under § 77.07(2) is “untimely,” then a judgment debtor . . . forfeits the right to make a later challenge on the same grounds in a motion to dissolve under § 77.07 . . . Therefore, in any case where notice is required (as in this case), the 20 day time period of § 77.07( . . .

FINBERG, v. SULLIVAN, A. V. a FINBERG,, 634 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1980)

. . . . § 77.07. The creditor has twenty-four hours to contest the debtor’s claim after receiving notice. . . .

SOKOLSKY, v. M. KUHN, f k a M., 386 So. 2d 806 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . below was obligated to conduct a further inquiry as to this issue, under its authority pursuant to § 77.07 . . .

STATE v. MILLER,, 373 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1979)

. . . . §§ 77.031, 77.04, 77.06, 77.07, Fla.Stat. (1975). . § 85.031(2), Fla.Stat. (1977): BY SALE WITHOUT . . .

M. GARRETT v. HOFFMAN, U. S. R. J. U. S., 441 F. Supp. 1151 (E.D. Pa. 1977)

. . . . § 77.07(1) (West Supp.1977). . . . See Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 77.01, 77.03, 77.04, 77.07, 77.08 (West Supp. 1977); Brown v. . . .

SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, v. A. BUTTER,, 350 So. 2d 573 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . dissolving a writ of garnishment entered prior to judgment pursuant to Sections 77.031, 77.04, 77.06 and 77.07 . . .

RAY LEIN CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. M. WAINWRIGHT, a, 346 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1977)

. . . judicial treatment of similar prejudgment procedures, we hold that Sections 77.031, 77.04, 77.06, and 77.07 . . . that of Louisiana, provides sufficient constitutional safeguards and points specifically to Section 77.07 . . . Sections 77.031, 77.04, 77.06, and 77.07, Florida Statutes (1975), insofar as they pertain to prejudgment . . . representative capacity held by him if the fiduciary or representative capacity is specified in the writ. 77.07 . . .

T. BOWLING M. v. ROCKET WHEELS INDUSTRIES, INC. a d b a a, 344 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . At the outset, however, we point out that Section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes (1974), does provide that . . .

M. HABERERN, v. LEHIGH AND NEW ENGLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, 554 F.2d 581 (3d Cir. 1977)

. . . Pitney, 139 F.2d 595 (2d Cir. 1943); 5 Collier on Bankruptcy § 77.07. . . .

NORTH AMERICAN TELEPHONE CORPORATION, v. RDM COMMUNICATION SERVICE, INC., 535 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1976)

. . . RDM filed a Motion to Dissolve this garnishment and according to § 77.07, Florida Statutes Annotated, . . .

D. BUNTON, a v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF TAMPA, a, 394 F. Supp. 793 (M.D. Fla. 1975)

. . . . § 77.07 does provide for a prompt hearing in which the defendant may challenge the issuance of the . . .

B. REEVES, v. DON L. TULLIS ASSOCIATES, INC., 305 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

. . . . § 77.07 provides for a trial of the issues made by the writ of garnishment, answer and reply. . . .

BROWN, v. LIBERTY LOAN CORPORATION OF DUVAL, a S., 392 F. Supp. 1023 (M.D. Fla. 1974)

. . . thereby, the garnishee is entitled to an order discharging him from further liability under the writ. 77.07 . . .

HOWARD v. ADAMS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 480 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1973)

. . . Under the plan proposed by the plaintiffs, the black population in District 3 would have been 77.07% . . .

JOHNSON, Sr. v. DAWSON, 257 So. 2d 282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . . § 77.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . . .

DYNATRONICS, INC. v. J. KNORR, Jr., 247 So. 2d 70 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . . § 77.07, F.S.A. provides for dissolution of garnishment by the court that entered the writ. . . . . § 77.07, F.S.A., or the posting of a bond under F.S. § 77.24, F.S.A., result in sufficient discharge . . . , the Florida Supreme Court also recognized that a garnishment may be discharged under both F.S. §§ 77.07 . . .

In PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, In DEFERRAL TAXES, 325 F. Supp. 294 (E.D. Pa. 1970)

. . . .) ¶ 77.07; 3A Collier, ¶ 62.14. . . .

BERTMAN, A. R. a v. KURTELL AND COMPANY,, 205 So. 2d 685 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . Section 77.07, in chapter 77, Fla.Stat., F. . . .

MARTIN, M. v. Jo MARTIN,, 196 So. 2d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)

. . . Sec. 77.07, F.S.A., dealing with trial of garnishment causes and dissolution of garnishments, is identical . . .

W. DICKEY, v. KAISER ALUMINUM CHEMICAL SALES, INC., 286 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1960)

. . . . § 77.07. . . .

L. H. NASH, v. I. D. WALKER, 78 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1955)

. . . sustain an allegation of the original affidavit when challenged by a traverse of the defendant, Sec. 77.07 . . . Sec. 77.07. . . . Sec. 77.07. Cf. Pleasant Valley Farms & Morey Condensery Co. v. Carl, 90 Fla. 420, 106 So. 427. . . .