Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sanchez v. Renda Broadcasting Corp.
Citations: 127 So. 3d 627; 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18157; 2013 WL 6030085Docket: No. 5D13-2489
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 14, 2013; Florida; State Appellate Court
Norberto Sanchez appeals a trial court order that granted Renda Broadcasting Corporation's amended motion for proceedings supplementary, which impleaded Sanchez as a defendant in Renda's suit against Norsan Group, Inc. Sanchez contends that proceedings supplementary under section 56.29 of the Florida Statutes require allegations of fraudulent asset transfers, which Renda did not provide. The court disagreed, affirming that proceedings supplementary can be used without such allegations to aid in judgment execution. The background involves Renda leasing to Norsan, followed by Renda suing Norsan for non-payment and obtaining a judgment. Norsan failed to satisfy the judgment, leading Renda to seek Sanchez's impleadment, claiming he was the sole shareholder and had testified that Norsan had no assets, no bank account, did not file tax returns, and was essentially a shell corporation. Renda aimed to pierce the corporate veil to hold Sanchez personally liable for Norsan's debt. The court reviewed the order de novo and noted that section 56.29 requires a judgment creditor to have an unsatisfied judgment and file an affidavit affirming its validity. The statute is intended to be liberally construed to allow the creditor full relief. It was established that proceedings supplementary can include impleading third parties without the necessity of alleging fraudulent transfers, as supported by case law, including *Ocala Breeders’ Sales Co.* and *Rashdan v. Sheikh*, which allow for piercing the corporate veil based on the improper conduct of the judgment debtor. Ultimately, the court confirmed that Renda had sufficiently alleged improper conduct by Sanchez and Norsan, justifying the trial court’s decision to implead Sanchez. The order was affirmed with judges Palmer, Cohen, and Wallis concurring.