Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 25-5-86 (2026)
Remedy for Default Upon Periodic Compensation Payments; Exemption of Compensation Claims, Etc., from Garnishment, Etc.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
For purposes of this article and Article 4 of this chapter:
(1) If the award, order, or settlement agreement is payable in installments and default has been made in the payment of an installment, the owner or interested party may, upon the expiration of 30 days from the default and upon five days’ notice to the defaulting employer or defendant, move for a modification of the award or settlement agreement by ascertaining the present value of the case, including the 15 percent penalty provision of Section 25-5-59, under the rule of computation contained in Section 25-5-85, and upon which execution may issue. The defaulting employer may relieve itself of the execution by entering into a good and sufficient bond, to be approved by the judge, securing the payment of all future installments, and forthwith paying all past due installments with interest and penalty thereon since due. The bond shall be recorded upon the minutes of the court.
(2) Claims for compensation, awards, judgments, or agreements to pay compensation owned by an injured employee or his or her dependent shall not be assignable and shall be exempt from seizure or sale or garnishment for the payment of any debt or liability.
(Acts 1919, No. 245, p. 206; Code 1923, §7576; Code 1940, T. 26, §302; Acts 1992, No. 92-537, p. 1082, §29.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1990–2017 · leading case: Beshears v. K-Mart Corp., 669 So. 2d 148 (Ala. 1995).
Beshears v. K-Mart Corp., 669 So. 2d 148 (Ala. 1995). “Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-86(2). Gary Beshears was injured in the course of his employment with K-Mart Corporation.”
McCall v. McCall, 596 So. 2d 2 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). “the income withholding issue, is pretermitted due to our reversal on the garnishment issue. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.”
Morrow v. Dillard, 257 So. 3d 316 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “Code 1975, which provides that "[c]laims for compensation, awards, judgments, or agreements to pay compensation owned by an injured employee or his or her dependent shall not be assignable and shall be exempt from seizure or sale or garnishment for the payment of any debt or…”
South Alabama Utils. v. Lambert, 957 So. 2d 484 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “Section 25-5-86, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “For purposes of this article and Article ■ 4 of this chapter: “(1) If the award, order, or settlement agreement is payable in installments and default has been made in the payment of an installment, the owner or interested party may,…”
In re Smith, 538 B.R. 867 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2015). “CODE § 25-5-86, contrary to his confirmed plan.”
Beshears v. K-Mart Corp., 669 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Our supreme court affirmed McCall , which was based on a holding that § 25-5-86 does not exempt workmen’s compensation benefits from attachment for satisfaction of a father’s child support obligation.”
Pate v. Jack Cornelius Shop, 628 So. 2d 782 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “Ultimately, in September 1992, Pate filed a motion seeking to have all payments due from Crossroads paid in a lump sum pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-86. The trial court did not rule on Pate’s motion within 90 days and Pate appeals.”
Gober v. Alabama Dep't of Corr., 871 So. 2d 838 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “Code 1975, and that such benefits could not, under § 25-5-86(2), Ala.Code 1975, 2 be seized, sold, or garnished for the payment of “any debt or liability” of the inmate; he contended that the department’s withholding of a portion of the funds paid as a consequence of his injury…”
Richardson v. Lahood & Assocs., Inc., 571 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. 1990). “All parties agree that Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-86(b), the anti-alienation section of the Alabama Workmen’s Compensation Act, prohibits the injunction of the disbursement of the workers’ compensation award.”
Jack Cornelius Shop v. Pate, 666 So. 2d 543 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). “On June 19, 1992, Pate filed a motion for modification of the judgment, requesting that future payments be made in a lump sum, pursuant to § 25-5-86, Ala.Code 1975, because of Crossroads’ alleged default.”
Crean v. Michelin North Am., Inc., 842 So. 2d 699 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002). “Section 25-5-86 provides in pertinent part: “(1) If the award, order, or settlement agreement is payable in installments and default has been made in the payment of an installment, the owner or interested party may, upon the expiration of 30 days from the default and upon five…”
AAA Mobile Home Movers, Inc. v. Holmes, 624 So. 2d 637 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993). “When, in the fall of 1990, AAA sought to refuse and deny payment of its obligation to Holmes, created under the trial court’s 1985 order, Holmes filed a motion pursuant to § 25-5-86, Code 1975, requesting that the trial court modify the order so as to ascertain the present value…”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-86(1) — 1 case
South Alabama Utils. v. Lambert, 957 So. 2d 484 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “Section 25-5-86, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “For purposes of this article and Article ■ 4 of this chapter: “(1) If the award, order, or settlement agreement is payable in installments and default has been made in the payment of an installment, the owner or interested party may,…”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-86(2) — 5 cases
Beshears v. K-Mart Corp., 669 So. 2d 148 (Ala. 1995). “Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-86(2). Gary Beshears was injured in the course of his employment with K-Mart Corporation.”
Morrow v. Dillard, 257 So. 3d 316 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “Code 1975, which provides that "[c]laims for compensation, awards, judgments, or agreements to pay compensation owned by an injured employee or his or her dependent shall not be assignable and shall be exempt from seizure or sale or garnishment for the payment of any debt or…”
In re Smith, 538 B.R. 867 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2015). “CODE § 25-5-86, contrary to his confirmed plan.”
Beshears v. K-Mart Corp., 669 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Our supreme court affirmed McCall , which was based on a holding that § 25-5-86 does not exempt workmen’s compensation benefits from attachment for satisfaction of a father’s child support obligation.”
Gober v. Alabama Dep't of Corr., 871 So. 2d 838 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “Code 1975, and that such benefits could not, under § 25-5-86(2), Ala.Code 1975, 2 be seized, sold, or garnished for the payment of “any debt or liability” of the inmate; he contended that the department’s withholding of a portion of the funds paid as a consequence of his injury…”
— Ala. Code § 25-5-86(b) — 2 cases
McCall v. McCall, 596 So. 2d 2 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). “the income withholding issue, is pretermitted due to our reversal on the garnishment issue. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.”
Richardson v. Lahood & Assocs., Inc., 571 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. 1990). “All parties agree that Ala.Code 1975, § 25-5-86(b), the anti-alienation section of the Alabama Workmen’s Compensation Act, prohibits the injunction of the disbursement of the workers’ compensation award.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.