F. DANIEL BENNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SOCIETY OF LLOYD'S, 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.
Bennett appeals from a trial court's denial of his claim of exemption for bank accounts containing Social Security benefits that were garnished to satisfy a judgment. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by ruling on the exemption claim without a hearing and must conduct an evidentiary hearing to allocate between exempt and non-exempt funds in the commingled accounts.
The trial court erred in ruling on the exemption claim without a hearing. Commingling of non-exempt deposits with exempt accounts does not automatically cause the entire account to lose exempt status; instead, the trial court must attempt to allocate between exempt and non-exempt funds when possible.
[1] A trial court errs by denying a claim of exemption for Social Security benefits without conducting an evidentiary hearing, especially when the claimant requests one.
[2] Commingling of exempt Social Security benefits with non-exempt funds in a bank account does not automatically cause the entire account to lose its exempt status.
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“it is not correct to say that the commingling of a nonexempt deposit with an exempt account will automatically cause the entire account to lose its exempt status.”
Establishes the governing legal principle that commingling does not automatically forfeit exempt status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLloyds obtained a judgment against Bennett and sought to satisfy it through garnishment. The trial court issued a writ of garnishment directed to Regi…
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 Claim Of Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
F. Daniel Bennett (“Bennett”) appeals from an order denying his claim of exemption and a final judgment in garnishment. We reverse.
The Society of Lloyds (“Lloyds”) obtained a judgment against Bennett. Thereafter, Lloyds sought to satisfy the judgment through garnishment proceedings. The trial court issued a post-judgment writ of garnishment directed to Regions Bank where Bennett maintained two accounts.
Subsequently, Bennett filed a claim of exemption, alleging that the bank accounts contained his direct deposited Social Security benefits, which are exempt from garnishment. Bennett attached a bank trans*569action history showing several deposits, including the Social Security benefits. Bennett requested a hearing on his claim of exemption. Due to a death in his family, Bennett failed to appear for the scheduled hearing.
The trial court denied the claim of exemption without prejudice, allowing Bennett ten days to file a motion for rehearing showing “a meritorious substantive defense.” Bennett, who is a pro se litigant, filed a motion for rehearing addressing only the reason for his failure to appear at the hearing. The trial court denied the motion for rehearing and later entered a final judgment in garnishment.
On appeal, Bennett asserts that the trial court erred in ruling on his claim of exemption without a hearing. Lloyds, on the other hands, contends the trial court properly ruled based on the bank transaction history, showing a commingling of exempt and non-exempt funds. We agree with Bennett.
In Beardsley v. Admiral Insurance Co., 647 So.2d 327, 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), this Court stated “it is not correct to say that the commingling of a nonexempt deposit with an exempt account will automatically cause the entire account to lose its exempt status.” Instead, the Court held that in these circumstances, if possible, the trial court should make an allocation between exempt and non-exempt funds.
Here, the trial court did not attempt to allocate between the exempt and nonexempt funds. Consistent with Beardsley, we, therefore, reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing giving Bennett an opportunity, if possible, to prove the source of funds in the bank accounts. The trial court then can determine which funds in the bank accounts are exempt from garnishment.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.