Florida Statute § 56.29 allows a creditor with an unsatisfied execution of a judgment to discover assets and subject those assets to execution. The statute also allows the creditor to follow assets to third parties, where those assets may have been transferred to third parties through fraud, in an effort to conceal them, fraudulently dispose of them. While the Motion to Implead the individual by proceeding supplementary was filed, the individual was not given the opportunity to respond and defend. The individual was not served in a manner that protected or recognized his Constitutional Due Process rights.

There was also a fundamental defect in Plaintiff's attemtp to domesticate a money judgment from Ohio. Plaintiff was obligated to serve, upon Defendant’s attorney of record, on behalf of the Defendant, any final order or final judgment. Furthermore, Defendant requested proof of service, and did not receive it. Service of the final order of final judgment is required by statute. The burden of proving that service was rendered upon the Defendant lies with Plaintiff, as he is in a better position to demonstrate that proper service was made. Since no proof was ever provided, it stands to reason that no service was made upon Defendant. Since no timely service was made upon the Defendant, Defendant’s appellate rights were effected, and therefore, this court would lack subject matter jurisdiction.