DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O KAREN SPRINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
PETER SPRINGER, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a lien on prospective workers' compensation settlement proceeds to satisfy a father's child support arrearage. The court held that a lien on future settlement proceeds is available even before the proceeds are disbursed, rejecting the argument that the lack of actual settlement funds prevents lien attachment.
A lien for child support arrearages can be imposed on prospective workers' compensation settlement proceeds even before the settlement is disbursed. The absence of actual settlement proceeds does not prevent the attachment of a lien on future proceeds.
[1] A lien for child support arrearages may be imposed on prospective workers' compensation settlement proceeds before disbursement.
[2] Workers' compensation benefits are not exempt from claims for child support arrearages.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a claim for child support arrearages is not a claim of a creditor”
Establishes that child support claims are treated differently from ordinary creditor claims under workers' compensation exemption law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeter Springer was in arrears on child support obligations in the amount of $6,222.55. He had received or would soon receive settlement proceeds from …
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.
PALMER, J.
The Department of Revenue, on behalf of Karen Springer, (DOR) appeals the final order entered by the trial court denying its request to place a lien against the prospective proceeds of Peter Springer’s workers’ compensation settlement for purposes of satisfying his $6,222.55 child support arrearage. Concluding that such a lien is available, we reverse.
DOR filed a motion for entry of lien, alleging that Peter Springer (the father) was in arrears on his child support obligation and that he had received, or soon would be receiving, a settlement from a workers’ compensation and/or personal injury claim. The motion requested the trial court to enter an order requiring payment of the arrearage out of the proceeds of said settlement or, if the settlement had not yet been received, then to enter an order placing a lien on any potential settlement until the arrearage was paid in full.
At the hearing which was conducted on the motion, DOR argued that it was entitled to the imposition of such a lien pursuant to the ruling in Bryant v. Bryant, 621 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The father responded that he had a 100% disability rating, there would be no lump sum settlement in his case at least for an extended period of time, and that since there was not yet any settlement proceeds, no lien could attach. The hearing officer entered an order summarily denying DOR’s motion. Upon review, the trial court approved the order. In reversing that ruling, we reject the conclusion that, as a matter of law, a lien for child support arrearages cannot be imposed before settlement proceeds have been disbursed.
Section 409.2575 of the Florida Statutes (1999) exempts workers’ compensation benefits from creditors’ claims but, as noted in Bryant, a claim for child support arrearages is not a claim of a creditor. The Bryant court explained that the purpose of the workers’ compensation law was not only to protect the worker but also to protect the worker’s dependents. Further, workers’ compensation benefits are included as income when a court determines the amount of a parent’s child support award.
The only fact which distinguishes this case from Bryant is that here no settlement proceeds have yet been disbursed. We hold that this distinction does not support a different conclusion. If this court were to hold otherwise then the real possibility would exist that a deadbeat parent could avoid the obligation to pay child support by disposing of settlement proceeds before a lien could attach. The imposition of a lien on prospective settlement proceeds is an appropriate mechanism to protect proceeds from improper diversion.
In closing, we note that issues regarding the enforcement of a child support arrearage lien should be decided by the trial court. For example, the enforcement of a lien through straight attachment of all proceeds, up to the amount of the child support arrearage, may not be appropriate in all cases, since it could leave the injured worker without sufficient funds for self- support. The trial court can consider its full array of equitable remedies, including income deduction orders and injunctions, in determining how best to enforce the lien.
Order REVERSED and cause REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodgers v. Reed, 931 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…oceeds of a parent’s worker’s compensation settlement, for purposes of satisfying that parent’s child support arrearage, is an appropriate device to ensure that the proceeds are not improperly diverted. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Springer v. Springer, 800 So. 2d 700, 701-02 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also Bryant v. Bryant, 621 So. 2d 574, 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The only caveat is the enforcement of the lien, which, this court observed in Springer, must accommodate both the child support needs and the needs of th…
-
CIGNA Prop. & Cas. v. Ruiz, 834 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…wn terms this statute only applies to “claims of creditors” or attachment or execution for “collection of a debt.” It is clear, under Florida law, that a claim for child support is not the claim of a creditor. See Department of Revenue v. Springer, 800 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that claims for child support arrearages not a claim of a creditor). See also Bryant v. Bryant, 621 So. 2d 574, 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that exemption of worker’s compensation claims from claims of creditors…
-
Cigna Prop. & Cas. v. Ruiz, 254 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2003)…ms this statute only applies to “claims of creditors” or attachment or execution for “collection of a debt.” It is clear, under Florida law, that a claim for child support is not the claim of a creditor. See Department of Revenue v. Springer, 800 So.2d 700, 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that claims for child support arrearages not a claim of a creditor). See also Bryant v. Bryant, 621 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that exemption of worker’s compensation claims from claims of cred…
Authorities Cited
- Bryant v. Carter Bryant, 621 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- J.D. Syples v. State, 621 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)