JAMES E. HERTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM FISHER, JR., 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.
In this garnishment appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal held that wages deposited in a bank account lose their statutory exemption from garnishment once they have been paid and are no longer "due" for services. The court affirmed a judgment directing a bank to pay garnished funds to satisfy Hertz's creditor judgment.
The court held that once wages have been paid and deposited in a bank account, they are no longer "due" for personal services and therefore are not exempt from garnishment. The exemption applies only to money that is still due as compensation for services, not money already paid and held by a bank.
[1] Wages paid for personal labor or services, once deposited into a bank account, are no longer considered money due for personal labor or services and are therefore subject…
[2] A bank account containing funds earned from personal labor or services is not exempt from garnishment once the funds have been paid and deposited.
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“No writ of attachment or garnishment or other process shall issue from any of the courts of this state to attach or delay the payment of any money or other thing due to any person who is the head of a family residing in this state, when the money or other thing is due for the personal labor or services of such person.”
The statutory exemption from garnishment that Hertz invoked under Florida Statute § 222.11
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Fisher obtained a judgment against James Hertz. A writ of garnishment was issued against the Florida First National Bank of Pensacola to attac…
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.
McCORD, Judge.
Appellee, William Fisher, Jr., obtained a judgment against appellant, James E. Hertz. Thereafter, the trial court issued a writ of garnishment against the Florida First National Bank of Pensacola to attach the bank account of Hertz. Hertz filed a petition for dissolution of the writ of garnishment which was denied, and thereafter the court entered final judgment directing the garnishee bank to pay Fisher the sum of $3,391.19, which was the amount garnishee admitted in its answer that it was indebted to Hertz, less garnishee’s attorney’s fees and the cost. The appeal is from the garnishment judgment.
In the garnishment proceeding, Hertz filed an affidavit stating that he was the head of a household as defined by the Florida Constitution and that the money in the bank account was received by him for personal services rendered. He contended in the trial court and contends here that the monies paid to him for personal labor or services and deposited in his bank account are not subject to writ of garnishment by virtue of § 222.11, Fla.Stat., which provides as follows:
“No writ of attachment or garnishment or other process shall issue from any of the courts of this state to attach or delay the payment of any money or other thing due to any person who is the head of a family residing in this state, when the money or other thing is due for the personal labor or services of such person.”
We disagree with appellant’s contention. Although from his affidavit it appears that he is the head of a family residing in this state and that the money in his bank account is money which was paid to him for personal services, such money is no longer due to him for personal services because it has been paid by those for whom he performed the personal services. It is not now due for personal services but is payable to him by the bank by virtue of it being held by the bank to his credit in his bank account.
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 369 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…when the money or other thing is due for the personal labor or services of such person. The county court ruled that the bank account was exempt and in doing so acknowledged the existence of a case holding directly to the contrary: Hertz v. Fisher, 339 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The circuit court, in its appellate capacity, properly reversed the county court pursuant to State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) which stands for the proposition that a trial court in the Fourth Appellate District…
-
Broward v. Jacksonville Med. Ctr., 690 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1997)…to attach or delay the payment of any money or other thing due to any person who is the head of a family residing in this State, when the money or other thing is due for the personal labor or services of such person. The courts in Hertz v. Fisher, 339 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and Holmes v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., 369 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), interpreted the foregoing wording of section 222.11 to mean that wages for personal services were no longer exempt from creditors once they were…
-
SUN First Nat'l Bank OF Orlando v. Gieger, 402 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…s of the vendor. [Emphasis in the original]. Sun Bank argues that when the exempt homestead property changes its form, it loses it exemption, citing Holmes v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., 369 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and Hertz v. Fisher, 339 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). These cases are inapposite, because they deal with the scope of the statutory exemption of wages due granted under section 222.11, Florida Statutes (1979). The Orange Brevard case clearly stands for the proposition that homestead…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence