61.12
Attachment or garnishment of amounts due for alimony or child support.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
61.12 Attachment or garnishment of amounts due for alimony or child support.—
(1) So much as the court orders of the money or other things due to any person or public officer, state or county, whether the head of a family residing in this state or not, when the money or other thing is due for the personal labor or service of the person or otherwise, is subject to attachment or garnishment to enforce and satisfy the orders and judgments of the court of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support, or other orders in proceedings for dissolution, alimony, or child support; when the money or other thing sought to be attached or garnisheed is the salary of a public officer, state or county, the writ of attachment or garnishment shall be served on the public officer whose duty it is to pay the salary, who shall obey the writ as provided by law in other cases. It is the duty of the officer to notify the public officer whose duty it is to audit or issue a warrant for the salary sought to be attached immediately upon service of the writ. A warrant for as much of the salary as is ordered held under the writ shall not issue except pursuant to court order unless the writ is dissolved. No more of the salary shall be retained by virtue of the writ than is provided for in the order.
(2) The provisions of chapter 77 or any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the court may issue a continuing writ of garnishment to an employer to enforce the order of the court for periodic payment of alimony or child support or both. The writ may provide that the salary of any person having a duty of support pursuant to such order be garnisheed on a periodic and continuing basis for so long as the court may determine or until otherwise ordered by the court or a court of competent jurisdiction in a further proceeding. Any disciplinary action against the employee by an employer to whom a writ is issued pursuant to this section solely because such writ is in effect constitutes a contempt of court, and the court may enter such order as it deems just and proper.
History.—s. 1, ch. 4973, 1901; GS 1937; s. 10, ch. 7838, 1919; RGS 3200; CGL 4992; s. 16, ch. 67-254; s. 14, ch. 71-241; s. 1, ch. 77-26; s. 1, ch. 78-63; s. 2, ch. 84-110; s. 1, ch. 84-135.
Note.—Former s. 65.13.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Sokolsky v. Kuhn
Sokolsky v. Kuhn (1981)
“Thus, we conclude that since Kuhn, Sokolsky's former wife, failed to comply with the requirement of section 222.”
Gibson v. Bennett (1990)
“The Court concluded that a money judgment for support arrearages was not the equivalent of an order "of the court of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support" within the meaning of section 61.12, and therefore no exception applied under the circumstances.”
Bowen v. Bowen (1985)
“If the party is employed but presently lacks funds or assets, the court may issue a writ directing his employer to garnish the party's salary in order to satisfy the alimony or child support obligations in accordance with section 61.12, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), or may…”
Waddell v. Schwarz (1981)
“12, Florida Statutes (1979), that she controvert the head of the family claim made by her ex-husband, whose wages she sought to garnishee, applied, and therefore, upon her failure to file an affidavit denying the contents of her ex-husband's affidavit asserting head of the…”
Hall v. AIR FORCE FINANCE CTR., ETC. (1977)
“§ 659 is compatible with Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), which states in part: "So much as the court orders of the money or other things due to any person or public officer, state, or county, whether the head of a family residing in this state or not, when the money or…”
Schwarz v. Waddell (1982)
“The three issues facing us are (1) whether garnishment under section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1979), 1 may be obtained prior to entry of a judgment for arrearages; (2) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter its order for continuing writ of garnishment for child…”
State of Florida Department of etc. v. Lisa O'Connor, f/k/a Lisa Zane (2015)
“The ruling was based on its statements at the hearing that: O’Connor I was persuasive, even if dicta, as to O’Connor’s legal rights; section 61.12, Florida Statutes, waived sovereign immunity for purposes of garnishing the un *481 claimed property; a one-time transfer of the…”
City of Miami v. Spurrier (1975)
“As authority for her contention, appellee cites § 61.12 Fla. Stat., F.S.A.; City of Jacksonville v.”
Bacardi v. White (1985)
“He argued that section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (1981), which authorized continuing writs of garnishment to enforce orders for alimony and child support, is *223 applicable only to the garnishment of an employer.”
Sokolsky v. Kuhn (1980)
“Although the support arrearages owed in the present case were reduced to judgment at a time when the support obligation had terminated due to the children's majority, § 61.12 is nevertheless applicable, and removes the § 222.”
Reyf v. Reyf (1993)
“We must interpret Section 61.12 as a whole, and in such a way as to give meaning to both of its constituent sub-parts.”
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Payne (1978)
“Rather, Judith's attorney timely filed an unsworn motion challenging John's exemption on the ground that the amounts due fell within the statutory exception to garnishment exemption for support orders, Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), and requesting judgment against the…”
— 61.12(1) — 11 cases
Gibson v. Bennett (1990)
“The Court concluded that a money judgment for support arrearages was not the equivalent of an order "of the court of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support" within the meaning of section 61.12, and therefore no exception applied under the circumstances.”
Waddell v. Schwarz (1981)
“12, Florida Statutes (1979), that she controvert the head of the family claim made by her ex-husband, whose wages she sought to garnishee, applied, and therefore, upon her failure to file an affidavit denying the contents of her ex-husband's affidavit asserting head of the…”
Sokolsky v. Kuhn (1981)
“Thus, we conclude that since Kuhn, Sokolsky's former wife, failed to comply with the requirement of section 222.”
Reyf v. Reyf (1993)
“We must interpret Section 61.12 as a whole, and in such a way as to give meaning to both of its constituent sub-parts.”
Sokolsky v. Kuhn (1980)
“Although the support arrearages owed in the present case were reduced to judgment at a time when the support obligation had terminated due to the children's majority, § 61.12 is nevertheless applicable, and removes the § 222.”
— 61.12(2) — 11 cases
Bacardi v. White (1985)
“He argued that section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (1981), which authorized continuing writs of garnishment to enforce orders for alimony and child support, is *223 applicable only to the garnishment of an employer.”
Gilbert v. Gilbert (1984)
State of Florida Department of etc. v. Lisa O'Connor, f/k/a Lisa Zane (2015)
“The ruling was based on its statements at the hearing that: O’Connor I was persuasive, even if dicta, as to O’Connor’s legal rights; section 61.12, Florida Statutes, waived sovereign immunity for purposes of garnishing the un *481 claimed property; a one-time transfer of the…”
Goldstein v. Ginsberg (1981)
Nichols v. Schwarz (1987)
— 61.12(b) — 1 case
Gimeno v. Rivera (2014)
— 61.12(h) — 1 case
Milmar Roofing Co. v. Jones (1990)
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.