JAMES WATERS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSALYN JOY ALBANESE, 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.
A former husband appealed a contempt order for failing to pay alimony, arguing he was obligated to withhold payments pending garnishment proceedings. The court affirmed the contempt order, holding that alimony is not subject to garnishment and therefore cannot be withheld based on garnishment claims against the obligor.
Alimony is not subject to garnishment and therefore cannot be withheld by the obligor. Although alimony is not compensation for personal labor or services and thus not exempt under the wage exemption statute on that basis, it is protected from garnishment on grounds of public policy. Alimony is not considered a 'debt' in the traditional sense.
[1] Alimony payments are not subject to garnishment as a debt under Florida law.
[2] Public policy considerations exempt alimony from garnishment proceedings.
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“Although we agree with the appellant's argument that the payment of alimony is not compensation for personal labor and services rendered, we nevertheless affirm the order of the trial court on grounds of public policy.”
Establishes that despite merit in appellant's statutory argument, public policy overrides it to protect alimony from garnishment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant (former husband) was ordered to pay alimony to the appellee (former wife). Garnishment proceedings were instituted against the appellant…
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 Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
A former husband appeals from an order holding him in contempt for failure to pay alimony. The appellant defended on the theory that he was obligated to withhold the alimony payments pending the outcome of garnishment proceedings that had been instituted against him as a garnishee. The garnishment involved a judgment against both the appellant and the appellee. The garnishment statute, section 77.06, Florida Statutes, provides that a garnishee is liable to the creditor for all “debts” due to the debtor defendant. The appellant contends that alimony is a debt.
The trial court determined that the alimony obligation was not subject to garnishment because section 222.11, Florida Statutes, exempts wages due for personal labor or services. The court also found alimony to be exempt from garnishment under the Federal Wage Garnishment Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1673. That statute limits the percentage of wages subject to garnishment and gives priority to orders of support.
Although we agree with the appellant’s argument that the payment of alimony is not compensation for personal labor and services rendered, we nevertheless affirm the order of the trial court on grounds of public policy. Additionally, alimony is not considered a “debt” in the traditional sense. Cf. State ex rel. Krueger v. Stone, 137 Fla. 498, 188 So. 575 (1939); Howard v. Howard, 118 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 122 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1960).
We note that the same public policy behind section 222.11 and the federal act, which prevents the debtor, and his or her family, from being a charge on the public, applies equally to the debtor who is dependent, in whole or in part, on alimony for support. Cf. Killian v. Lawson, 387 So. 2d 960 (Fla.1980); Holmes v. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., 369 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The policy considerations favoring the protection of support and alimony payments from the garnishment of creditors are readily apparent. See Joel Bailey Davis Inc. v. Poole, 194 Ga. 824, 22 S.E. 2d 795 (1942); Columbus Personnel Service v. Gachette, 158 Ga.App. 298, 279 S.E. 2d 746 (1981); Siver v. Shebetka, 245 Iowa 965, 65 N.W. 2d 173 (1954); Wright v. Wright, 93 Conn. 296, 105 A. 684 (1919); Shanahan v. Klyn, 268 Mich. 120, 255 N.W. 733 (1934).
The order holding the appellant in contempt is affirmed.
HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Howard v. Howard, 118 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- State v. Stone, 137 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1939)
- Killian v. Lawson, 387 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1980)
- Holmes v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 369 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Howard v. Howard, 122 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1960)
- LAY v. Bordo Prods. Co., 122 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1960)