Villamorey, S.A. v. Bdt Investments, Inc.

Citation: 245 So. 3d 909Docket: 17-1952

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 18, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Villamorey, S.A., a Panamanian company, appeals a non-final order from the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, which denied its motion for a protective order in garnishment proceedings initiated by BDT Investments, Inc. The court affirms the order, ruling that Villamorey was correctly included as a party in the garnishment case.

BDT had obtained a judgment against another Panamanian company, Lisa, and sought to enforce this judgment in Florida, believing that over $13 million owed to Lisa was being held in a Villamorey account at Banco Santander International. BDT served the bank with a writ of garnishment, prompting the bank to respond by denying the allegations and identifying Villamorey as the account holder. The bank claimed uncertainty about the garnishment's applicability to Villamorey’s account and subsequently froze the account.

BDT argued that a dividend exceeding $13 million, declared by Villamorey and payable to its minority shareholder Lisa, was subject to the garnishment. Following statutory requirements, BDT provided Villamorey with notice and a copy of the bank's answer, instructing Villamorey to file a motion to dissolve the garnishment within twenty days. Villamorey’s motion claimed it owed no debt to BDT and upheld the presumption of ownership of the account while challenging the legitimacy of BDT’s foreign judgment against Lisa, citing their relatedness and shared legal representation. The court’s jurisdiction over the appeal is supported by Florida law, allowing appeals on non-final orders that determine personal jurisdiction.

The defendant and any person with ownership interest in the property must file and serve a motion to dissolve the garnishment within 20 days of being notified, alleging any inaccuracies in the plaintiff's motion. BDT initiated discovery against Villamorey, including requests for admissions and document production, and sought to depose its corporate representative. Villamorey moved to quash this discovery or obtain a protective order, arguing it was not subject to discovery due to a lack of personal jurisdiction and thus not a party to the garnishment proceedings. The trial court rejected this argument, affirming Villamorey’s status as a party eligible for discovery, particularly since it expressed intentions to participate fully in mediation and trial. Villamorey also claimed an “absolute right” to file a motion for summary judgment under Florida law. The court found that Villamorey was indeed a party to the proceedings, likening its participation to that of a "duck" in the litigation. Villamorey appealed the discovery order, which was stayed pending appeal. The court disagreed with Villamorey’s assertion that it needed to file an affidavit to be considered a party in the garnishment action, clarifying that identification in the garnishee's answer suffices for ownership claims. The right to move to dissolve the writ is granted to the defendant and others identified in the garnishee's response, regardless of the affidavit requirement under section 77.16.

A person other than the defendant may assert ownership of property held by a garnishee by filing an affidavit, prompting the court to convene a jury to resolve the property rights between the claimant and plaintiff unless the jury is waived. Regardless of whether section 77.07(2) or 77.16(1) is invoked, the act of seeking to dissolve the writ implies consent to the court's jurisdiction, making the person a participant in the garnishment proceedings. Relevant case law, including Babcock v. Whatmore and Boeykens v. Slocum, indicates that attempting to seek relief waives any challenge to personal jurisdiction. The conclusion affirms that Villamorey is entitled to a trial to determine if the funds in their account belong to Lisa and allows Villamorey to conduct discovery, which the trial court may enforce. The appellate court affirms the trial court's discovery order and remands for further proceedings, while noting that any specific discovery objections by Villamorey remain applicable.