Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 77.07 (2025)

Dissolution of writ.

✓ 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

77.07 Dissolution of writ.—

(1) The defendant, by motion, may obtain the dissolution of a writ of garnishment, unless the petitioner proves the grounds upon which the writ was issued and unless, in the case of a prejudgment writ, there is a reasonable probability that the final judgment in the underlying action will be rendered in his or her favor. The court shall set down such motion for an immediate hearing. If the writ is dissolved, the action then shall proceed as if no writ had been issued.

(2) The defendant and any other person having an ownership interest in the property, as disclosed by the garnishee’s answer, shall file and serve a motion to dissolve the garnishment within 20 days after the date indicated in the certificate of service on the defendant and such other person of the plaintiff’s notice required by s. 77.055, stating that any allegation in plaintiff’s motion for writ is untrue. On such motion this issue shall be tried, and if the allegation in plaintiff’s motion which is denied is not proved to be true, the garnishment shall be dissolved. Failure of the defendant or other interested person to timely file and serve the motion to dissolve within such time limitation shall result in the striking of the motion as an unauthorized nullity by the court, and the proceedings shall be in a default posture as to the party involved.

(3) If the motion denies the debt demanded before judgment, the judge may require pleadings on motion of either party on the debt demanded 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 defendant’s motion to plaintiff’s motion.

(5) If the plaintiff fails to file a dismissal or motion for final judgment within 6 months after filing the writ of garnishment, the writ shall automatically be dissolved and the garnishee shall be discharged from further liability under the writ. The plaintiff has the right to extend the writ for an additional 6 months by serving the garnishee and the defendant a notice of extension and filing in the underlying proceeding a certification of such service.

History.—s. 1, ch. 7353, 1917; RGS 3454; CGL 5307; s. 27, ch. 67-254; s. 2, ch. 83-97; s. 3, ch. 85-272; s. 389, ch. 95-147; s. 16, ch. 2005-241.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 52 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. v. Value Seafood, Inc., 121 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. v. Value Seafood, Inc., 121 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). · cites it 17× “Section 77.07 was amended in 2005 to add subsection (5), which states as follows: *87 If the plaintiff fails to file a dismissal or motion for final judgment within 6 months after filing the writ of garnishment, the writ shall automatically be dissolved and the garnishee shall…”

Keith Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, (FARC), 771 F.3d 713 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “person disclosed in the garnishee’s answer to have any ownership interest in the” asset); Fla. Stat. § 77.07 (2) (permitting “any other person having an ownership interest in [garnished] property” to move to dissolve the writ with a motion “stating that any allegation in…”

Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 197 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). · cites it 6× “Two-and-a-half years later, the garnisheés moved to dissolve the writ, arguing that the writs had automatically dissolved when plaintiff failed to file a motion for final judgment within 6 months, as required by section 77.07(5), Florida Statutes (2012).”

Int'l Travel Card, Inc. v. R. C. Hasler, Inc., 411 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). · cites it 15× “Despite the facial applicability of subsection (2), the trial judge’s summary dismissal of ITC’s motion with no provision for a hearing on the merits conflicts with subsection (1) of § 77.07. These two subsections provide: (1) The court to which a garnishment is returnable shall…”

Bnp Paribas v. Wynne, 944 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). · cites it 6× “§ 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. [3] Under section 77.”

Merriman Investments, LLC v. Ujowundu, 123 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). · cites it 5× “Depending on the circumstance, the request to dissolve may be made in either of two ways: (1) on motion of the debtor challenging the truth of the allegations in the creditor’s petition for the writ, see § 77.”

Villamorey, S.A. v. Bdt Investments, Inc., 245 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). · cites it 4× “§ 77.07(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). 4 BDT propounded discovery on Villamorey with respect to the writ of garnishment.”

Rudd v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 761 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). · cites it 10× “In essence, it was the court’s position that Rudd could never file a motion to dissolve the writ as was his right under section 77.07, until First Union filed its answer.”

Doug Sears Consulting, Inc. v. ATS Servs., Inc., 752 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). · cites it 7× “Sears Consulting, on April 7, 1999, filed and served a Motion to Dissolve Prejudgment Writs of Garnishment (Motion to Dissolve) pursuant to section 77.07, Florida Statutes (1997). A hearing on the Motion to Dissolve was held on April 16, 1999, before a successor judge.”

Windsor-Thomas Grp., Inc. v. Parker, 782 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). · cites it 5× “As a result, nothing in section 77.07 prohibits American General from filing a motion or answer arguing that the writ was issued in violation of section 222.”

Ray Lein Const., Inc. v. Wainwright, 346 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1977). · cites it 2× “Petitioner argues that the Florida garnishment statute, like that of Louisiana, provides sufficient constitutional safeguards and points specifically to Section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, which provides for an immediate post-garnishment hearing before a judge.”

Regions Bank v. Hyman, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1234 (M.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 2× “Regions further argues that the co-owners were on actual notice of the garnishment, and filed' affidavits asserting an ownership interest, but did not file a motion to dissolve the writs, in accord with F.S. § 77.07(2). 2. Discussion The Court notes that, as to Defendant…”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— 77.07(1) — 10 cases

Bnp Paribas v. Wynne, 944 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “§ 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. [3] Under section 77.”

Int'l Travel Card, Inc. v. R. C. Hasler, Inc., 411 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Despite the facial applicability of subsection (2), the trial judge’s summary dismissal of ITC’s motion with no provision for a hearing on the merits conflicts with subsection (1) of § 77.07. These two subsections provide: (1) The court to which a garnishment is returnable shall…”

Merriman Investments, LLC v. Ujowundu, 123 So. 3d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). “Depending on the circumstance, the request to dissolve may be made in either of two ways: (1) on motion of the debtor challenging the truth of the allegations in the creditor’s petition for the writ, see § 77.”

Windsor-Thomas Grp., Inc. v. Parker, 782 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). “As a result, nothing in section 77.07 prohibits American General from filing a motion or answer arguing that the writ was issued in violation of section 222.”

Rudd v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 761 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “In essence, it was the court’s position that Rudd could never file a motion to dissolve the writ as was his right under section 77.07, until First Union filed its answer.”

— 77.07(2) — 18 cases

Bnp Paribas v. Wynne, 944 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “§ 77.07(1), Fla. Stat. [3] Under section 77.”

Villamorey, S.A. v. Bdt Investments, Inc., 245 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “§ 77.07(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). 4 BDT propounded discovery on Villamorey with respect to the writ of garnishment.”

Ray Lein Const., Inc. v. Wainwright, 346 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1977). “Petitioner argues that the Florida garnishment statute, like that of Louisiana, provides sufficient constitutional safeguards and points specifically to Section 77.07(2), Florida Statutes, which provides for an immediate post-garnishment hearing before a judge.”

Regions Bank v. Hyman, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1234 (M.D. Fla. 2015). “Regions further argues that the co-owners were on actual notice of the garnishment, and filed' affidavits asserting an ownership interest, but did not file a motion to dissolve the writs, in accord with F.S. § 77.07(2). 2. Discussion The Court notes that, as to Defendant…”

— 77.07(4) — 1 case

— 77.07(5) — 5 cases

Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. v. Value Seafood, Inc., 121 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). “Section 77.07 was amended in 2005 to add subsection (5), which states as follows: *87 If the plaintiff fails to file a dismissal or motion for final judgment within 6 months after filing the writ of garnishment, the writ shall automatically be dissolved and the garnishee shall…”

Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 197 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “Two-and-a-half years later, the garnisheés moved to dissolve the writ, arguing that the writs had automatically dissolved when plaintiff failed to file a motion for final judgment within 6 months, as required by section 77.07(5), Florida Statutes (2012).”

Martinez v. golisting.com (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Orso v. Disner (S.D. Fla. 2024).

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

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.