Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 15, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2271

Lower Tribunal No. 13-18355

________________

Taso Group, LLC,

Appellant,

vs.

Alan Gould, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. 

Hanzman, Judge.

Kula & Associates, P.A., Elliot B. Kula, and William D. Mueller, for 

appellant.

Harvey J. Sepler, P.A., and Harvey J. Sepler (Hollywood), for 

appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. 

FERNANDEZ, C.J.
2

Defendant Taso Group, LLC (“Taso”) appeals the trial court’s “Final 

Judgment in Garnishment Against Taso Group, LLC” entered on the trial 

court’s “Decision and Order On Garnishors’ Amended Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Garnishee’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” We affirm the 

final judgment in part and reverse it in part only as to the post judgment 

interest portion of the judgment. 

The procedural and litigation history of this case is tortured and 

convoluted. Limiting the background of this case to the parties before this 

Court, Taso received sixteen retail check cashing/payday lending stores and 

$6,300,000 in cash receivables from Buckeye Check Cashing of Florida II, 

LLC (“Buckeye II”) by means of a “Membership Interest Purchase 

Agreement” (“MIPA”) and an Assignment and Assumption Agreement. Taso 

assumed the unpaid balance of promissory notes owed by Buckeye II to 

Check Cashing USA, Inc. (“CCUSA”). Before the transfer to Taso, appellees 

and plaintiffs below, Alan Gould and Jay Goldman (collectively, “plaintiffs”), 

sued CCUSA to collect on the promissory notes. At issue in the underlying 

case and now before this Court is only a $9,000,000 note.

In August 2016, plaintiffs obtained a final judgment against CCUSA. 

After litigation, the trial court found that in the MIPA transaction, Taso 

leveraged the purchase by assuming Buckeye II’s obligations to CCUSA on 
3

the Buckeye II promissory notes. The court found that CCUSA consented to 

the assignment of Buckeye II’s stores to Taso, as well as Taso’s assumption 

of debt that Buckeye II still owed CCUSA.

In December 2019, plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Complaint 

Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors’ Amended Motion for Writ of Garnishment” 

against Taso. On December 13, 2019, plaintiffs served Taso with a writ of 

garnishment. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on Taso’s remaining 

liability on the $9,000,000 note to CCUSA. In turn, Taso filed a motion for 

summary judgment.

After the requisite hearings, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment, and denied Taso’s motion for summary judgment. In its 

“Decision and Order On Garnishors’ Amended Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Garnishee’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” the court stated:

“[T]he Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and 

that the record is undisputed that when the writ of garnishment was served 

on Taso on December 13, 2019, Taso was indebted to CCUSA in the amount 

of $2,744,463.57 on the $9 MM Note alone.” As such, the trial court entered 

its Final Judgment in Garnishment Against Taso Group, LLC and ordered it 

to pay $2,475,271.21 to plaintiffs. The Final Judgment provides that plaintiffs 
4

shall receive the principal owed to them, as well as “statutory judgment 

interest thereafter until paid.”

Taso raises several issues on appeal, none of which have merit except 

for its contention that interest was improperly assessed against it in the Final 

Judgment. Section 77.083, Florida Statute (2022) states:

. . . No judgment in excess of the amount remaining unpaid on 

the final judgment against the defendant or in excess of the 

amount of the liability of the garnishee to the defendant, 

whichever is less, shall be entered against the garnishee.

§ 77.083, Fla. Stat. (2022). Here, on December 13, 2019, the date the writ 

of garnishment was served, Taso was indebted to CCUSA for the amounts 

remaining on the $9 million note, which was $2,744,463.47 plus interest. The 

amount owed to plaintiffs on the judgments, with interest to the date the writ 

of garnishment was served, was $2,475,271.21. This was the amount the 

trial court correctly ordered to be paid in the final judgment.

However, the trial court also ordered that the amount should be paid 

“plus statutory interest thereafter until paid, . . .” According to Suntrust Bank 

v. Arrow Energy, Inc., 199 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), a trial court 

cannot enter a judgment in a garnishment proceeding which includes liability 

for post-judgment interest. Id. By providing for post-judgment interest, “the 

court exceeded its jurisdictional authority over the property which was the 

subject matter of the controversy.” Id. at 1028. In the case before us, that 
5

amount is $2,475,271.21. Moreover, unlike section 77.081, Florida Statutes 

(2022) which provides for an award of interest, there is no such provision in 

section 77.083. Accordingly, the trial court erred in ordering that interest be 

paid on the $2,475,271.21 judgment. 

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in part and reverse only as to 

the postjudgment interest portion of the judgment. We remand the case to 

the trial court for the court to enter an amended final judgment that does not 

include postjudgment interest.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.