JOSEPH VETRICK, FORMER HUSBAND, AND RAYMOND AND DILLON, P.C., GARNISHEE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSAN LEE HOLLANDER, AND JAMES P. O'FLARITY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this garnishment case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment enforcing a continuing writ of garnishment against a former husband's wages, holding that the writ was subject to the statutory head-of-family wage exemption because the underlying obligation was a judgment rather than child support or alimony.
The court held that the continuing writ was subject to the head-of-family exemption because section 77.0305 (which authorized the writ for judgments) does not create an exception to the head-of-family exemption, unlike section 61.12(2) which explicitly exempts child support and alimony from that protection. Because Hollander failed to deny Vetrick's head-of-family affidavit, the writ should have been returned and all garnishment proceedings ceased.
[1] Wages of the head of a family are exempt from a writ of garnishment.
[2] A continuing writ of garnishment is statutorily authorized for judgments.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes provides for continuing writs of garnishment, but only for orders that involve child support or periodic alimony. None of the orders of this appeal involve child support or periodic alimony. The language of this section creates an exception to the section 222.11 head of the family exemption”
Establishes that child support and alimony writs explicitly override the head-of-family exemption
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Vetrick and Susan Lee Hollander divorced in 1978. Ten years later, Hollander sought to enforce unpaid divorce-related orders and a judgment by …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Continuing Writ Of Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
Appellants seek review of the final judgment1 entered after the hearing on appel-lee’s motion to enforce a continuing writ of garnishment. We reverse.
The parties got divorced in 1978. Ten years later, in an attempt to obtain payment of several orders and a judgment from the divorce proceedings, appellee, the former wife, filed a motion for a continuing writ of garnishment, pursuant to section 77.0305, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). Appellant, Joseph Vetrick, the former husband, with his response to the motion, filed an affidavit which claimed that he was the head of a family. The former wife never filed a denial to the facts in the affidavit. Appellant, Raymond and Dillon, P.C. (Raymond and Dillon), the garnishee, filed an answer to the motion which admitted that they employed the former husband as an attorney and listed his salary and deductions. The continuing writ issued, but Raymond and Dillon failed to surrender any part of the former husband’s salary. Ap-pellee then filed a motion to enforce the writ of garnishment and the trial court entered the appealed final judgment against Raymond and Dillon.
Section 222.11, Florida Statutes
This section exempts the wages of the head of a family from a writ of garnishment.
Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes
This section does not provide for continuing writs of garnishment.
Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes
This section provides for continuing writs of garnishment, but only for orders that involve child support or periodic alimony. None of the orders of this appeal involve child support or periodic alimony. The language of this section creates an exception to the section 222.11 head of the family exemption:
The provisions of chapter 77, or any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, ....
Section 77.0305, Florida Statutes
This recently enacted section provides for continuing writs of garnishment against wages and salaries, but only for judgments. The language of this section does not create an exception to the head of the family exemption:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,....
(Emphasis added.)
The former wife could not obtain a continuing writ for any of the orders. Her continuing writ for the judgment is statutorily authorized, but that writ is subject to the head of the family exemption. Therefore, when the former wife failed to deny the former husband’s head of a family affidavit within two days after his notice was served upon her, the continuing writ should have been returned to her and all garnishment proceedings should have ceased. § 222.12, Fla.Stat. (1989).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DOWNEY, J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur. . Although appellant, Joseph Vetrick, did not appeal the trial court's order granting the continuing writ of garnishment, the final judgment on appeal contains a finding by the trial court that the writ was "duly issued." We address the validity of the writ because the parties only briefed that issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Cadle Co. v. G & G Assocs., 737 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…de under oath, not necessarily sworn out before the officer who issued the process. See Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Payne, 358 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1978), receded from on other grounds, Waddell v. Schwarz, 405 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1981); Vetrick v. Hollander, 566 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); TST Impresso, Inc. v. J.C. Nomer, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Beardsley v. Admiral Ins. Co., 647 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Reichenbach v. Chemical Bank of New Jersey, 623 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Elvine…
-
Reyf v. Reyf, 620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…money, or child support. ...” 1 However, while subpart (1) of the statute addresses garnishment, only subpart (2) authorizes a continuing writ of garnishment, which is a remedy separate and distinct from a writ of garnishment. Vetrick v. Hollander, 566 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Subpart (2) provides that a continuing writ of garnishment will be available only to collect “alimony or child support or both”, but does not mention suit money or attorneys’ fees. We must interpret Section 61.12 as a whole, a…
-
Alvaro Martinez, Jr., M.D. v. GOLISTING.COM, Inc., 233 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…owever, while subpart (1) of the statute addresses garnishment, oply subpart (2) authorizes a continuing writ of garnishment, “which is a remedy separate and distinct from a writ of garnishment.” Reyf, 620 So. 2d at 219 (citing Vetrick v. Hollander, 566 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)). Section 61.12(2) provides as follows: The provisions of chapter 77 or any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the court may issue a continuing writ of garnishment to an employer to enforce the order of the…