EAGLE FINANCE
v.
CARTER, ET UX.
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 1976 Florida garnishment case, the court held that mortgage payment benefits received by a debtor due to disability are exempt from garnishment under Florida Statute 222.18, applying the same liberal construction policy used for wage exemptions to disability-related benefits.
The court held that mortgage payment benefits resulting from disability are exempt from garnishment under Florida Statute 222.18. The court concluded that the same liberal construction policy applied to wage exemptions should apply to statutes protecting disability-related benefits, and that mortgage benefits paid as a result of verified disability constitute "disability income benefits" from "insurance" entitled to statutory protection.
[1] Disability income benefits received from insurance are exempt from garnishment under Florida Statute 222.18.
[2] Statutes providing exemptions from garnishment for the head of a family are to be liberally construed to preserve a means of living for the debtor and their family.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The section providing for exemption for the head of a family of his wages from garnishment expresses a public policy of the State of Florida and must be liberally construed in order to effect the purpose of the statute which is to preserve to the unfortunate debtor and his family a means of living without becoming charges upon the public.”
Establishes the foundational public policy requiring liberal construction of exemption statutes to protect debtors and their families from becoming public charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant, the head of a household, had funds in a bank account from two sources: a check from a workers' compensation claim and a $160 check from an …
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 Liberal Construction Of Exemption Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for hearing before the court upon defendant’s filing an affidavit in which he alleges that the funds sought to be garnished herein are exempt because he is the head pf the household and thus is eligible for the exemption under Florida Statute 222.11, and also because the funds are disability income benefits which are exempt from garnishment under Florida Statute 222.18. Frpm the testimony and evidence at the hearing the court finds —
1. Defendant is the head of a family residing in this state. Florida Statute 222.11.
2. The moneys in defendant’s bank account come from two sources — (a) a check received as a result of a workmen’s compensation claim, and (b) a check for $160 received as a result of an insurance policy guaranteeing payment of the policy holder’s mortgage during the term of his illness and recuperation.
From the foregoing, the court reaches the following —
*137CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
It is undisputed that workmen’s compensation benefits fall within the purview of §222.18. The question is whether mortgage payment benefits fall in the same category. The court concludes they do. While there is a dearth of case authority construing Fla. Stat. 222.18, the courts have offered guidance as to the underlying policy and interpretation of similar statutes.
“The section providing for exemption for the head of a family of his wages from garnishment expresses a public policy of the State of Florida and must be liberally construed in order to effect the purpose of the statute which is to preserve to the unfortunate debtor and his family a means of living without becoming charges upon the public.” Maryl v. Hernandez, 254 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
It seems beyond question that the same policy of liberal construction should apply to statutes protecting benefits accruing to the defendant because of his inability to work, as would apply to exempt wages from work. If anything, defendant and his family are more vulnerable at this time and in need of greater protection.
Defendant would not receive the mortgage payment benefits but for (1) the existence of a verified disability which prevents him from working and supporting his family and (2) the existence of an insurance policy for this explicit purpose. Thus the mortgage payment benefits constitute “disability income benefits” from “insurance” and are exempt from garnishment by'virtue of Florida Statute 222.18.
Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that the writ of garnishment is dissolved, and that the deposit for attorney’s fee made herein be paid over to the garnishee.