Opinion
Case No. 2D16-4692
04-16-2021
212 WEST 18 LLC, Appellant, v. Ashley KOZEL, Appellee.
Evan R. Marks of Marks & West, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Steven L. Brannock, Philip J. Padovano, and Joseph T. Eagleton of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; and Jeffrey D. Fisher and Zachary R. Potter of Fisher Potter Hodas, PL, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.
Evan R. Marks of Marks & West, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.
Steven L. Brannock, Philip J. Padovano, and Joseph T. Eagleton of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; and Jeffrey D. Fisher and Zachary R. Potter of Fisher Potter Hodas, PL, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.
VILLANTI, JUDGE 212 West 18 LLC, a third-party defendant in proceedings supplementary to execution of a judgment entered against Todd Kozel, appeals from an order granting default judgment against it and awarding damages in the amount of $34,611,702, the amount of the judgment obtained against Mr. Kozel in the underlying action. Because we reversed the underlying judgment against Mr. Kozel in Kozel v. Kozel, 302 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), we must reverse the damages award in this case as well.
Ms. Kozel's motion to commence proceedings supplementary to execution was brought pursuant to section 56.29, Florida Statutes (2015). This court has explained the nature of such proceedings:
Proceedings supplementary under section 56.29 are ancillary, postjudgment proceedings conducted in the same action in which the judgment was obtained. See Fundamental Long Term Care Holdings, LLC v. Jackson-Platts, 110 So. 3d 6, 7–8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). They enable the judgment creditor to execute upon the property of the judgment debtor, regardless of whether that property is held by the debtor or by a third party, and thus spare the creditor the burden and expense of maintaining separate actions to collect the judgment. See § 56.29(5) ; Jackson–Platts, 110 So. 3d at 8. Section 56.29 is thus typically regarded as a procedural mechanism for reaching assets to which the judgment creditor is legally entitled rather than as an independent font of substantive rights and obligations. See, e.g., Morton v. Cord Realty, Inc., 677 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Nat'l Auto Serv. Ctrs., Inc. v. F/R 550, LLC, 192 So. 3d 498, 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (emphases added). Thus, when a plaintiff has an unsatisfied judgment, proceedings supplementary provide the plaintiff with an alternate avenue to collect assets owned by the defendant that are in the possession of nonparties. Accordingly, if the underlying judgment against the principal debtor is invalid, proceedings against a third party to collect on that judgment are logically—and legally—impossible.
212 West also seeks reversal of the portion of the order that strikes its pleadings as a sanction for contempt and fraud upon the court. In response, Ms. Kozel argues that the part of the order on appeal that strikes 212 West's pleadings as a sanction should stand. We decline to address these arguments. Because we reverse the money judgment against 212 West for the reasons explained above and in Kozel, 302 So. 3d 939, we must also reverse the portion of the judgment striking 212 West's pleadings for the same procedural and jurisdictional reasons.
To be clear, we express no opinion regarding the trial court's reasons for striking 212 West's pleadings. Although we reverse the order on appeal in its entirety, our reversal of the portion of the order striking 212 West's pleadings as a sanction is not a determination of the merits of the imposition of the sanction.
Reversed.
SILBERMAN and SLEET, JJ., Concur.