Case Name: MULLINS LUMBER COMPANY, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. W.W. LUMBER AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., Appellee/Cross Appellant, v. GUILDWAY BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., Panelized Building Systems, Inc., and Richard Harvey, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-09-28
Citations: 446 So. 2d 1083
Docket Number: Nos. 82-1809, 82-1927
Parties: MULLINS LUMBER COMPANY, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. W.W. LUMBER AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., Appellee/Cross Appellant, v. GUILDWAY BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., Panelized Building Systems, Inc., and Richard Harvey, Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 446
Pages: 1083–1084

Head Matter:
MULLINS LUMBER COMPANY, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. W.W. LUMBER AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC., Appellee/Cross Appellant, v. GUILDWAY BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., Panelized Building Systems, Inc., and Richard Harvey, Appellees.
Nos. 82-1809, 82-1927.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 28, 1983.
On Rehearing March 14, 1984.
Freeman W. Barner, Jr., of Cromwell & Remsen, Riviera Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.
Robert L. Sader of Tworoger, Sader & Ferrell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for ap-pellee/cross appellant, W.W. Lumber and Building Supplies.

Opinion:
BERANEK, Judge.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. We agree based on C & S Plumbing, Inc., v. Live Supply, Inc., 397 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
A final judgment awarding W.W. Lumber $26,823.52 was filed on February 2, 1981. On February 5, 1981, W.W. Lumber filed a motion for writ of garnishment naming Mullins Lumber as garnishee. The writ was issued the same day and served on garnishee one day later. Appellant then filed a motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment as untimely filed and executed, which the trial court denied.
We reverse on the basis of our opinion in C & S Plumbing, Inc., supra, wherein we stated, "The time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing has not expired; therefore, the writ was issued prematurely." Accordingly, we reverse and remand for action consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.