CINDY REYF, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAN REYF, APPELLEE
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.
A continuing writ of garnishment is not available under Section 61.12 to satisfy a final judgment for attorneys' fees ancillary to a dissolution action.
[1] A continuing writ of garnishment under Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes, is available only for the collection of alimony or child support, not for attorneys' fees award…
[2] Section 61.12, Florida Statutes, must be interpreted as a whole to give meaning to all of its constituent sub-parts.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a marital dissolution, the wife obtained a judgment for attorneys' fees against the husband. The wife sought a continuing writ of garnishmen…
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
LEVY, Judge.
Upon completion of her marital dissolution action, Cindy Reyf, the wife, obtained a final judgment against Alan Reyf, the husband, for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $13,194. The wife then sought to obtain a continuing writ of garnishment under Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1991), against the husband’s salary to satisfy the judgment. The trial court refused to issue the continuing writ, and we affirm.
Section 61.12(1) provides for “garnishment to enforce and satisfy the orders and judgments of the courtfs] of this state for alimony, suit 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, and in such a way as to give meaning to both of its constituent sub-parts. State v. Hayles, 240 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1970); Greenhut Constr. Co. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Therefore, we conclude that a con-tinning writ of garnishment is not available under Section 61.12 to satisfy a final judgment for attorneys’ fees ancillary to a dissolution action. Compare Nichols v. Schwarz, 504 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (continuing writ of garnishment authorized by § 61.12(2) only for collection of future periodic payments of alimony or child support).
Affirmed.
. Although Section 61.12(1) was formerly held not to apply to final judgments, Sokolsky v. Kuhn, 405 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1981), this case was subsequently overruled by the Legislature when the words "and judgments” were added to the above-quoted language. See Ch. 84-135, § 1, at 425, Laws of Fla.; Cooper v. Cooper, 546 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Stage Lighting, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…h the rule that courts must construe statutes to give each word effect, without limiting the statute’s words or adding words not placed there by the legislature. Gretz v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 572 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.1991); Reyf v. Reyf, 620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Adopting Budget’s argument would mean deleting the 627.7263(2) requirement that the risk-shifting clause inform “the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1)....” Contrary to Budget’s argument, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Reliance In…
-
Sachs v. Sachs, 623 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…after final judgment granting a continuing writ of garnishment against his salary, pursuant to section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1991), solely for the collection of the former wife’s attorney’s fees. We reverse the order on authority of Reyf v. Reyf, 620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). This holding renders moot appellant’s remaining point. Remanded.…
-
Alvaro Martinez, Jr., M.D. v. GOLISTING.COM, Inc., 233 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…ch word effect, without limiting the statute’s words or adding words not placed there by the legislature.” Miami Stage Lighting v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., 712 So. 2d 1135, 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (emphasis added) (citing, among others, Reyf v. Reyf, 620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)). Florida courts are without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way that would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications because to do so would be an abrogation of legislative…
Authorities Cited
- Greenhut Constr. Co., Inc. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Joyner v. Joyner, 247 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- State v. Hayles, 240 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1970)
- Sokolsky v. Kuhn, 405 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1981)
- Vetrick v. Hollander, 566 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Nichols v. Elton H. Schwarz, 504 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Cooper v. Ina P. Cooper, 546 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)