DAVID J. WILLIAMS, III, APPELLANT,
v.
ESPIRITO SANTO BANK OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the settlement agreement did not constitute a written agreement allowing garnishment, thus the head of a family is exempt from garnishment of disposable earnings.
After obtaining a default judgment, the parties entered into a settlement agreement for a payout schedule. The agreement did not include a garnishment…
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 Disposable Earnings cases and more on FLexlaw
per curiam:.
Appellant, David J. Williams, III (Williams), appeals an order granting appel-lee, Espirito Santo Bank of Florida (Espiri-to), a continuous writ of garnishment. We reverse.
After Espirito obtained a default judgment against Williams for failure to pay a note, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided for a payout schedule. The agreement did not contain any provision for garnishment. Williams, who supports three children, became unable to make the required payments, and the trial court granted Espirito’s motion for continuous writ of garnishment.
It is fundamental that garnishment statutes must be strictly construed. Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Colvin, 419 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Scogin v. Scogin’s Inc., 287 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Crabtree Constr. Co., Inc., 283 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Section 222.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the head of a family is exempt from garnishment of disposable earnings, unless a written agreement allowing garnishment is executed.
Strictly construing this statute, we find that Williams, as head of a family, is exempt because the terms of the settlement agreement do not qualify as a written agreement allowing garnishment. Thus, since the settlement agreement does not expressly contain a garnishment provision, and since Williams as the head of the family did not execute any other written agreement to have his wages garnished, the order for continuous writ of garnishment must be reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. v. Value Seafood, Inc., 121 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…a Statutes [2012].” Gigliotti Contracting N., Inc. v. Traffic Control Prod. of N. Fla. Inc., 788 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). “It is fundamental that garnishment statutes must be strictly construed.” Williams v. Espirito Santo Bank of Fla., 656 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Failure to adhere to the garnishment procedures is at the root of Akerman’s problem here, see Gigliotti Contracting N., Inc., 788 So. 2d at 1016, as we agree with the trial court that Akerman’s failure to file a motion for f…
-
Gigliotti Contracting N., Inc. v. Traffic Control Prods. OF N. Fla., Inc., 788 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…want to pay SCI’s contract price twice. The statutory remedy of garnishment is governed by the procedures outlined in chapter 77, Florida Statutes (1997). Garnishment statutes are strictly construed. See Williams v. Espirito Santo Bank of Florida, 656 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Paz v. Hernandez, 654 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); T-Jett Enters., Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc., 543 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Failure to strictly adhere to the garnishment procedures is at the root of Gigliotti’s probl…
-
Marquez v. Bluecare Home Health SVCS., Inc., 116 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…s those controlling garnishment and claims of exemption. Cadle Co. v. Pegasus Ranch, Inc., 920 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We begin by acknowledging that garnishment statutes must be strictly construed, Williams v. Espirito Santo Bank of Fla., 656 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), and statutory provisions regarding exemptions from garnishment must be strictly construed in favor of the debtor. Cadle Co. v. G & G Assocs., 757 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). With regard to a claim of exemption, the rele…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Crabtree Constr. Co., Inc., 283 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Kearse v. State, 419 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Colvin, 419 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Maldonado v. State, 287 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Scogin v. Scogin's Inc., 287 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)