Dixie National Bank v. Chase
Florida District Court of Appeal
485 So. 2d 1353 (1986)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Stephen Chase II (plaintiff) obtained a judgment against Jim Gore on June 2, 1983, in the amount of $48,473.50. In order to collect on the judgment, Chase moved for a writ of garnishment directing Dixie National Bank (Dixie) (defendant) to disclose and garnish any funds held by Dixie on behalf of Gore. The court issued the writ of garnishment and ordered Dixie to answer within 20 days stating whether Dixie was indebted to Gore at the time the writ was served, at the time of the answer, or at any time in between. Dixie answered and disclosed one account with a balance of $32.86. Due to an error with the record search, Dixie failed to discover an additional account owned by Gore. Chase obtained a second writ of garnishment directed to Dixie that referenced Jim (Jimmy) Gore or any business entities or accounts in which he has an interest or over which he has signatory authority. Dixie again failed to discover the second account. Subsequently, Dixie discovered the second account and filed an amended answer to the writ. The second account had a balance of $65.63 when Dixie filed the amended answer, but almost $14,000 had been deposited and withdrawn to that account between the service of the first writ and the filing of the amended answer to the second writ. The trial court entered a judgment against Dixie for the almost $14,000 that passed through the second account. Dixie appealed to the Florida Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hubbart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
