JAY ALAN MYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
W. BRAD STEUBE, SHERIFF OF MANATEE COUNTY, 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.
Jay Alan Myers appealed the denial of his mandamus petition challenging the Manatee County Sheriff's deduction of subsistence costs from his inmate trust account. Myers argued the account was funded with veteran's disability benefits protected from seizure under federal law, but the court affirmed the denial because the funds were not directly deposited from the Veterans Administration and thus became untraceable and unprotected.
The court held that the sheriff did not violate § 5301 because the funds in Myers' account were not directly deposited from the Veterans Administration and therefore became untraceable and lost their protected status once converted to cash.
[1] Veteran's disability benefits are exempt from seizure under 38 U.S.C. …
[2] A writ of mandamus is used to enforce an established legal right by compelling a public officer or agency to perform a duty required by law.
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 intelligence“funds are exempt pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5301 only if the check from the Veteran's Administration is deposited directly into an inmate account; once otherwise protected funds are deposited elsewhere, or otherwise cashed, the funds become unidentifiable and lose-their protected status”
Establishes the legal standard for when veteran's benefits remain protected from seizure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMyers is an inmate whose mother, holding durable power of attorney for him, deposited small amounts of cash (usually $25) into his jail trust account …
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
Jay Alan Myers appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Myers argued in his petition that the Manatee County Sheriff could not deduct subsistence and other costs from his inmate account because the account was funded with veteran’s disability benefits protected from seizure under 38 U.S.C. § 5301.1 He requested that the trial court order the sheriff to refund the money deducted from his account. The trial court issued an order to show cause requiring the sheriff to respond to Myers’ petition. The sheriff responded, in pertinent part, as follows:
Myers’ veteran benefit checks are not deposited directly into his jail trust account. Rather, it appears that Myers’ mother, who holds Durable Power of Attorney for Myers, places small denominations of cash, usually $25.00 or so, into Myers’ trust account by bringing cash to the jail. Thus, the Sheriff lacks the ability to determine the source of the funds deposited into Myers’ account. It follows then, that in levying upon Myers’ trust account, the Sheriff does not violate § 5301 as the funds deposited therein are not protected by § 5301.
The trial court denied Myers’ petition, citing Purvis v. Crosby, 2006 WL 1836034 (N.D.Fla.2006) (holding that funds are exempt pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5301 only if the check from the Veteran’s Administration is deposited directly into an inmate account; once otherwise protected funds are deposited elsewhere, or otherwise cashed, the funds become unidentifiable and lose-their protected status). “A writ of mandamus is used to enforce an established legal right by compelling a public officer or agency to perform a duty required by law.” Lee Cnty. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The petitioner has the burden to show that there is clear legal right on the part of the petitioner and an indisputable legal duty on part of the re*499spondent. Id. Because Myers has failed to show that there is an indisputable legal duty on the part of the sheriff to protect untraceable funds in Myers’ account, we affirm the order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunlap v. Crews, 138 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…utes, because those funds were allegedly disability benefits payments from The Department of Veteran Affairs, which are exempt under Rule 38-203.201, Florida Administrative Code. The Second District addressed a very similar issue in Myers v. Steube, 61 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) and we find its reasoning persuasive. By adopting Myers, we hold that the funds transferred by the third party into Mr. Dunlap’s inmate trust fund were not identifiable as VA benefit payments because the VA benefits checks were no…
Authorities Cited
- LEE Cnty. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)