Truist Bank v. De Posada
A garnishee bank appealed an order denying cross-motions for summary judgment in a garnishment proceeding, where its motion had been captioned in part as a motion to dissolve writs of garnishment. The Third District dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) the court looks only to the four corners of the challenged order, which here determined nothing beyond the existence of genuine issues of material fact.
Key facts
- Truist Bank appealed an order denying cross-motions for summary judgment in a garnishment proceeding against De Posada, where the bank's motion was captioned in part as a motion to dissolve writs of garnishment.
- The trial court denied the cross-motions based solely on the existence of genuine issues of material fact, without making express determinations regarding the right to immediate possession of property or the writs of garnishment themselves.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion draws a clear line between the new rule 9.130(a)(3)(F) immunity-appeal analysis (which looks to the motion and record) and the unchanged four-corners analysis for all other 9.130(a)(3) categories… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.