HEIDI ZIEGLER
v.
HARTMUT ZIEGLER
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 trial court may grant a writ of garnishment when the defendant fails to prove the head-of-household exemption, but section 57.115 does not authorize an award of attorney's fees in garnishment proceedings.
[1] Section 57.115, Florida Statutes, does not authorize an award of attorney's fees in a garnishment action because garnishment is not merely another form of execution of a…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“garnishment is not 'merely another form of execution' of a judgment”
Court's reasoning for why section 57.115 attorney's fees provision does not apply to garnishment actions, citing Paz v. Hernandez
Following dissolution of marriage in 2015, the former husband obtained a money judgment against the former wife and filed a motion for continuing writ…
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 Burden Of Proof For Statutory Exemptions cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
HEIDI ZIEGLER,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-2218
HARTMUT ZIEGLER,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed July 10, 2020
Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Diana Michelle Tennis, Judge.
Kyle D. Macomber, of Middleton & Middleton, P.A., Melrose, for Appellant.
Mark A. Skipper, of Law Office of Mark A. Skipper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.
WALLIS, J.
Heidi Ziegler (Former Wife) appeals the nonfinal order entering a writ of garnishment in favor of Hartmut Ziegler (Former Husband). We reverse in part. The parties' marriage was dissolved in 2015 and, as a part of those proceedings, Former Husband obtained a money judgment against Former Wife. Former Husband subsequently filed a Motion for Continuing Writ of Garnishment and requested that the trial court order that Former Wife pay his attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.115,
2 Florida Statutes (2019). Former Wife filed a Claim of Exemption based on her status as head of household. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the writ of garnishment, finding that Former Wife failed to meet her burden of proving that she is the head of household such that the statutory exemption applies. The order also required that Former Wife pay Former Husband's attorney's fees.
The trial court's finding that Former Wife failed to meet her burden of proving the statutory exemption is supported by competent, substantial evidence. We, therefore, affirm the portion of the order entering the writ of garnishment.1 However, as Former Husband concedes, the trial court erred in ordering that Former Wife pay attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.115. See Paz v. Hernandez, 654 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (finding that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.115 in a garnishment action because garnishment is not "merely another form of execution" of a judgment). Accordingly, the portion of the order awarding Former Husband attorney's fees is reversed.
AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part.
GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.