ARTHUR SILVERSMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
RITA SILVERSMITH, 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.
Trial court erred in characterizing an equitable distribution lump sum award as spousal support and ordering it collected via income deduction; income deduction orders are limited to alimony and child support under Florida law.
Income deduction orders may not be used to collect equitable distribution awards and are limited to alimony and child support obligations.
[1] Income deduction orders under Florida law are limited to collection of alimony and child support and may not be used to enforce equitable distribution awards.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[S]ection 61.1301 is expressly limited in its application to collection of either alimony and child support.”
Court citing Board of Pension Trustees to establish the statutory limitation on income deduction orders.
The trial court issued an equitable distribution lump sum award to the former wife but characterized it as spousal support and ordered it garnished fr…
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 Spousal Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As the former wife in the instant case concedes, the trial court erred when it characterized its equitable distribution lump sum award as “spousal support” and ordered that the award be garnished from the former husband’s wages by way of an income deduction order directing payment through the central depository. It is well settled that an income deduction order may not be entered for purposes of effectuating the trial court’s plan for equitable distribution. See § 61.1301, Fla. Stat.(2000); see also Colligan v. Colligan, 759 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3DCA 2000); Nash v. Nash, 688 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Board of Pension Trustees of the City General Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So. 2d 1012, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“[Sjection 61.1301 is expressly limited in its application to collection of either alimony and child support.”) Accordingly, the order under review is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter an Amended Income Deduction Order reflecting only that amount permitted to be garnished from the former husband’s wages as a result of his child support and alimony obligations. The Equitable Distribution Award to the former wife cannot be included in the Income Deduction Order. Rather, it is payable as set forth in the parties’ Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carollo v. Carollo, 920 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…. Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Additionally, this Court has generally held that income deduction orders are not available to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Colligan v. Colligan, 759 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(recognizing that income deduction order pursuant to section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, is limited to collection of child support and alimony, and not appropriate to secure e…
-
Bd. OF Trs. OF the Orlando Police Pension Plan v. Langford, 833 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…rders are not available to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. See Motil v. Motil, 771 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (income deduction orders cannot be used to achieve equitable distribution of pension); Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (income deduction order garnishing husband’s wages reversed when used to effectuate equitable distribution); Colligan v. Colligan, 759 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (income deduction order cannot be used to effectuate equitable di…
-
Spalding v. Spalding, 813 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…Thus, an award of attorney’s fees arising from an action for support cannot, itself, be characterized as either alimony or support, just as a lump sum payment for equitable distribution cannot be construed as support. See Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We are not concerned, here, with any right that a party may have to an income deduction order for attorney’s fees incurred in securing payment of support or alimony, as specifically authorized in section 61.1301(l)(a), Flo…
Authorities Cited
- Bd. of Pension Trs. of the City Gen. Emps. Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Nash v. Nash, 688 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Colligan v. Colligan, 759 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)