222.11
Exemption of wages from garnishment.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
222.11 Exemption of wages from garnishment.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Earnings” includes compensation paid or payable, in money of a sum certain, for personal services or labor whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, or bonus.
(b) “Disposable earnings” means that part of the earnings of any head of family remaining after the deduction from those earnings of any amounts required by law to be withheld.
(c) “Head of family” includes any natural person who is providing more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent.
(2)(a) All of the disposable earnings of a head of family whose disposable earnings are less than or equal to $750 a week are exempt from attachment or garnishment.
(b) Disposable earnings of a head of a family, which are greater than $750 a week, may not be attached or garnished unless such person has agreed otherwise in writing. The agreement to waive the protection provided by this paragraph must:
1. Be written in the same language as the contract or agreement to which the waiver relates;
2. Be contained in a separate document attached to the contract or agreement; and
3. Be in substantially the following form in at least 14-point type:
IF YOU PROVIDE MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE SUPPORT FOR A CHILD OR OTHER DEPENDENT, ALL OR PART OF YOUR INCOME IS EXEMPT FROM GARNISHMENT UNDER FLORIDA LAW. YOU CAN WAIVE THIS PROTECTION ONLY BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT. BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU AGREE TO WAIVE THE PROTECTION FROM GARNISHMENT.
(Consumer’s Signature) (Date Signed)
I have fully explained this document to the consumer.
(Creditor’s Signature) (Date Signed)
The amount attached or garnished may not exceed the amount allowed under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 1673.
(c) Disposable earnings of a person other than a head of family may not be attached or garnished in excess of the amount allowed under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 1673.
(3) Earnings that are exempt under subsection (2) and are credited or deposited in any financial institution are exempt from attachment or garnishment for 6 months after the earnings are received by the financial institution if the funds can be traced and properly identified as earnings. Commingling of earnings with other funds does not by itself defeat the ability of a head of family to trace earnings.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2065, 1875; RS 2008; GS 2530; RGS 3885; CGL 5792; s. 1, ch. 81-301; s. 6, ch. 85-272; s. 2, ch. 93-256; s. 1, ch. 2010-97.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 144
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: MDFC Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Glickman (In Re Glickman)
MDFC Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Glickman (In Re Glickman) (1991)
“Therefore, the money owed by the Garnishee to Defendant is not exempt under F.S. § 222.11. On the other hand, Defendant argues he is an employee of the Garnishee, thus the money owed by the Garnishee to Defendant constitutes wages and is exempt under F.”
In Re Pettit (1998)
“(3)Earnings that are exempt under subsection (2) and are credited or deposited in any financial institution are exempt from attachment or garnishment for 6 months after the earnings are received by the financial institution if the funds can be traced and properly identified as…”
In Re Edward Schlein and Kay Schlein, Debtors. Edward Schlein and Kay Schlein v. George E. Mills, Jr., Trustee, Florida (1993)
“We are also called upon to decide a Florida law issue that is unrelated to the ERISA preemption question: whether the Florida wage exemption statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 222.11 (West 1989), provides an exemption for that part of a bank account that consists of the earnings of an…”
Broward v. Jacksonville Medical Center (1997)
“11 to provide that the funds are exempt for six months after earnings are received by the financial institution if they can be traced and properly identified, even though they may have been commingled with other funds.”
In Re Harrison (1997)
“00 constitutes exempt earnings within the purview of Fla. Stat. § 222.11 . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A. (2016)
“§ 222.11.” (quoting In re McDermott, 2011 WL 740727 , at *2 (Bankr.”
Killian v. Lawson (1980)
“The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed [1] and certified the following question: Whether a divorced man, who pays
In Re Braddy (1998)
“See § 222.11, Fla. Stat. (1998). DISCUSSION Once a bankruptcy petition has been filed, whether a voluntary, involuntary or joint case, an estate is created.”
In Re Zamora (1995)
“After consideration of the record, including the posthearing memoranda, the Court concludes that the assets in question do not qualify as earnings under Fla.Stat. § 222.11. Therefore, the Trustee’s objection will be sustained.”
Brock v. Westport Recovery Corp. (2002)
“We affirm the trial court's finding the "head of family" exemption under section 222.11, Florida Statutes (2001) did not apply; however, we quash the continuing writ of garnishment because Brock's earnings were not "salary or wages" within the meaning of section 77.”
Nedzad Miljkovic v. Shafritz and Dinkin, P.A. (2015)
“See Fla. Stat. § 222.11 . Appellees sought that information through discovery, and, in order to avoid dissolution of the writ of garnishment before such discovery took place, Appellees had to file the sworn reply.”
In Re Wheat (1992)
“In Harrington , this Court held that monies contributed to a debtor’s retirement fund by the debtor and his employer were not exempt pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 222.11 since the fund could not be characterized as wages.”
— 222.11(1)(a) — 2 cases
Brock v. Westport Recovery Corp. (2002)
“We affirm the trial court's finding the "head of family" exemption under section 222.11, Florida Statutes (2001) did not apply; however, we quash the continuing writ of garnishment because Brock's earnings were not "salary or wages" within the meaning of section 77.”
— 222.11(1)(c) — 4 cases
Hill v. Haywood (1999)
In Re Weinshank (2009)
USAmeriBank v. Klepal (2011)
— 222.11(2) — 5 cases
Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A. (2016)
“§ 222.11.” (quoting In re McDermott, 2011 WL 740727 , at *2 (Bankr.”
In re IM (2013)
USAmeriBank v. Klepal (2011)
Vining v. Segal (1999)
— 222.11(2)(a) — 6 cases
In Re Braddy (1998)
“See § 222.11, Fla. Stat. (1998). DISCUSSION Once a bankruptcy petition has been filed, whether a voluntary, involuntary or joint case, an estate is created.”
In re IM (2013)
USAmeriBank v. Klepal (2011)
— 222.11(2)(b) — 9 cases
Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A. (2016)
“§ 222.11.” (quoting In re McDermott, 2011 WL 740727 , at *2 (Bankr.”
Brock v. Westport Recovery Corp. (2002)
“We affirm the trial court's finding the "head of family" exemption under section 222.11, Florida Statutes (2001) did not apply; however, we quash the continuing writ of garnishment because Brock's earnings were not "salary or wages" within the meaning of section 77.”
In RE McDERMOTT (2010)
Hill v. Haywood (1999)
— 222.11(2)(c) — 1 case
In Re Weinshank (2009)
— 222.11(2)(e) — 1 case
In Re Weinshank (2009)
— 222.11(3) — 4 cases
In Re Lee (1995)
In Re Weinshank (2009)
— 222.11(a) — 1 case
Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A. (2016)
“§ 222.11.” (quoting In re McDermott, 2011 WL 740727 , at *2 (Bankr.”
— 222.11(c) — 1 case
— 222.11(l)(a) — 4 cases
In RE McDERMOTT (2010)
Vining v. Segal (1999)
In re IM (2013)
In Re Cook (2011)
— 222.11(l)(c) — 7 cases
In Re Zamora (1995)
“After consideration of the record, including the posthearing memoranda, the Court concludes that the assets in question do not qualify as earnings under Fla.Stat. § 222.11. Therefore, the Trustee’s objection will be sustained.”
Kane v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A. (2016)
“§ 222.11.” (quoting In re McDermott, 2011 WL 740727 , at *2 (Bankr.”
In Re Lawton (2001)
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.