Case Name: Donald S. ZUCKERMAN, Appellant, v. HOFRICHTER & QUIAT, P.A. et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-05-01
Citations: 672 So. 2d 888
Docket Number: No. 95-1444
Parties: Donald S. ZUCKERMAN, Appellant, v. HOFRICHTER & QUIAT, P.A. et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 672
Pages: 888–888

Head Matter:
Donald S. ZUCKERMAN, Appellant, v. HOFRICHTER & QUIAT, P.A. et al., Appellees.
No. 95-1444.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 1, 1996.
Cooper & Wolfe and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellant.
Berger & Chafetz and Steven R. Berger, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The Supreme Court's decision in Zuckerman v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 646 So.2d 187 (Fla.1994), quashing Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), that the disability insurance settlement receivable by the judgment debtor was exempt from garnishment under section 222.18, Florida Statutes (1991), plainly required the return not only of the principal sum which had been wrongfully garnished but of the interest on that amount as well. See Hill v. First Nat'l Bank, 79 Fla. 391, 84 So. 190 (1920); Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Accordingly, the contrary ruling below is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate determination of the amount of interest in question.