[CLC-Discussion] Garnishment lien v. construction lien

[Steve Thompson]

Anyone have any familiarity with this scenario:

Creditor of electrical subcontractor garnishes general contractor for funds
owed to subcontractor.  General contractor answers that it owes money to
electrical subcontractor but wants to hold funds potentially due to supplier
of electrical subcontractor who has served NTO. (assume creditor's claim
does not arise from the construction project itself).

Fla. Stat. 77.06 was revised in 2000 in response to the Misvidal case to
clarify that a lien is created on funds held by the garnishee upon service
of the writ of garnishment.  Arguably, creditor has a lien on all funds due
to the electrical subcontractor which is superior in dignity to any
potential, and unperfected, construction lien of subcontractor's supplier.
Also, supplier technically has no direct remedy against general contractor
(i.e the garnishee).  On the other hand, it is understandable that the
general contractor would want to protect the owner from potential liens by
ensuring that a material supplier who provided notice receives payment.

Thoughts or law?

Steven F. Thompson, Esq.
Thompson & Brooks
412 E. Madison St., Ste 900
Tampa, Fl. 33602
813-387-1821
Fax 813-387-1824

THE ABOVE MAY CONTAIN OR CONSTITUTE A  CONFIDENTIAL 
AND PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED 
RECIPIENT, OR IF YOU HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION 
IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THOMPSON & BROOKS BY TELEPHONE 
AT (813) 387-1821 [collect] AND INFORM THE OFFICE OF THE ERROR; 
AND PLEASE DESTROY OR DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THIS MESSAGE MAY NOT 
BE REVIEWED, PRINTED, DISPLAYED, OR RE-TRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE 
SENDER'S CONSENT. ALL RIGHTS PROTECTED. THERE MAY BE NO FURTHER 
DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR ITS CONTENTS 
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THOMPSON & BROOKS. THANK YOU.