PETER THOMAS STAVROU, ALEXANDRA STAVROU, and BESSY STAVROU, Appellants,
DESTINATION BOAT CLUBS, INC.; and ISLAND BREEZE BOAT CLUB AND RENTAL, INC., Appellees.
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Keith R. Kyle, Judge.
C. Morgan, III of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Fort Myers, for
L. Avery of Avery, Whigham & Winesett, P.A., Fort Myers,
for Appellee Destination Boat Clubs, Inc.
appearance for remaining Appellee.
Thomas Stavrou, Alexandra Stavrou, and Bessy Stavrou appeal
from a final judgment upon impleader wherein the circuit
court awarded Destination Boat Clubs, Inc. (Destination), a
total of $59, 900 in proceedings supplementary. For the
reasons explained herein, we affirm in part and reverse in
proceedings supplementary award was based on the final
judgment entered in a breach of contract action between
Destination and Island Breeze Boat Club and Rental, Inc.
(Island Breeze). Peter Stavrou was the sole officer and
shareholder of Island Breeze. Judgment was rendered in favor
of Destination in the breach of contract action, and the
circuit court awarded $10, 000 (the equivalent of
Destination's escrow deposit) plus an award of
attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $36, 552.90.
Destination thereafter impleaded the three Stavrous
individually and initiated the proceedings supplementary,
arguing that Peter improperly withheld the escrow deposit as
well as $23, 000 that Island Breeze earned from boat sales
and that Peter improperly transferred $26, 900 from Island
Breeze's bank account to a joint bank account shared by
the three Stavrous. Ultimately, the circuit court entered the
order on appeal, concluding (1) that Peter violated his
fiduciary duties by keeping the $10, 000 escrow deposit,
thereby preventing Destination from recovering at least a
portion of the final judgment, (2) that Peter engaged in
fraudulent transfers of the $10, 000 deposit, the $23, 000
earned from the boat sales, and the $26, 900 that was moved
from the Island Breeze bank account to the Stavrous'
joint bank account, and (3) that Peter's actions
justified piercing the corporate veil. The effect of the
circuit court's order was to award all of the improperly
transferred monies to Destination. Peter was held liable for
the entire amount of the judgment while Alexandra and Bessy
were held jointly and severally liable only for the $26, 900.
appeal, the Stavrous first argue that the circuit court erred
by rendering a judgment against Peter in an amount that
exceeded the amount that was owed to Destination under the
original final judgment, and Destination concedes error on
this point. A judgment in an ancillary
proceeding should not be entered in excess of the
unpaid amount of the underlying judgment. See §
726.109(2), Fla. Stat. (2015) (explaining that "to the
extent a [fraudulent] transfer is voidable in an action by a
creditor under s. 726.108(1)(a), the creditor may recover
judgment for the value of the asset transferred . . . or
the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor's
claim" (emphasis added)); Mansolillo v. Parties
by Lynn, Inc., 753 So.2d 637, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
(applying section 726.109(2) to a judgment rendered in
proceedings supplementary); cf. Sec. Bank, N.A. v.
BellSouth Advert. & Publ'g Corp., 679 So.2d 795,
800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (quoting Henry P. Trawick, Jr.,
Trawick's Florida Practice and Procedure §
33-6, at 559 (1995 ed.), for the proposition that a judgment
should not be entered against a garnishee in excess of the
unpaid amount on the judgment against a garnishment defendant
"or in excess of the garnishee's liability to the
garnishment defendant" (emphasis omitted)). And here,
the underlying judgment was for $46, 552.90 ($10, 000 for the
escrow deposit plus $36, 552.90 for attorneys' fees and
costs). However, we agree that Destination is entitled to
recover prejudgment interest running from the date of loss.
See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d
212, 215 (Fla. 1985); Mansolillo, 753 So.2d at 640.
Consequently, we reverse the final judgment upon impleader in
part as against Peter. We affirm the final judgment upon
impleader as against Alexandra and Bessy. On remand, the
circuit court should enter an amended final judgment upon
impleader that reflects a judgment against Peter in an amount
of $46, 552.90 plus any prejudgment interest that has accrued
from the various dates of loss. The judgment against
Alexandra and Bessy jointly and severally for $26, 900 should
remain unchanged. We find no merit in the other two points
raised by the Stavrous in this appeal.
in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings in
WALLACE and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
The proceedings supplementary in this
case were ancillary postjudgment proceedings wherein
Destination sought to recover fraudulently transferred
monies. We reject the Stavrous' contention to the
contrary. See Nat'l Auto Serv. Ctrs., Inc. v. F/R
550, LLC, 192 So.3d 498, 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016);