Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The trust did not give James any authority whatsoever to manage or distribute trust property. When a trust document provides the trustee with complete discretion over distributions, a creditor may only reach those distributions the trustee chooses to make. § 736.0504(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). The creditor may not compel a distribution from the trustee or attach any interest in the trust before the trustee makes a distribution. Id. This applies whether or not the trustee has abused his discretion in managing the trust. § 736.0504(1), Fla....

...Inglis, had not made any payments directly to Berlinger. Instead, the trustees made payments on behalf of Berlinger directly to his creditors and utilities. He asserted that the trusts were discretionary and opined that the applicable trust statute, section 736.0504, prohibited any creditor, including Cassel-berry, from attaching any distributions paid on behalf or for the benefit of Ber-linger....

...nsure that there remained sufficient assets in the trust to secure the continued payment of alimony. Berlinger and Inglis pursued separate appeals. See Inglis, slip op. at 1, — So.3d at -. II. ANALYSIS A. Discretionary Trusts Berlinger argues that section 736.0504 specifically prohibits Casselberry from attaching distributions made to or for Berlinger because the trusts are discretionary trusts 4 and are afforded greater protection from creditors under the Florida Trust Code. We disagree. We conclude that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Bacardi v. White, 463 So.2d 218 (Fla.1985), is controlling. See also §§ 736.0503, 736.0504....

...ctive and imposes the writs as a last resort. In accordance with Bacardi , the trial court’s order granting Casselber-ry’s motion for continuing writs of garnishment against the Berlinger Discretionary Trusts was proper. B. Sections 736.0503 and 736.0504 In 2006, the Florida legislature enacted the Florida Trust Code. Sections 736.0503 and 736.0504 of the code are especially relevant to this case....

...provision is unenforceable against: (a) A beneficiary’s child, spouse, or former spouse who has a judgment or court order against the beneficiary for support or maintenance. [[Image here]] (3) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and in s. 736.0504, a claimant against which a spendthrift provision may not be enforced may obtain from a court, or pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, an order attaching present or future distributions to or for the benefit of the beneficiary....

...Thus, the spendthrift provisions included in Berlinger’s trusts are unenforceable as to Casselberry because she has an order against him for support. A former spouse’s remedies under 736.0503(3) are subject to the exceptions and provisions found in 736.0504. According to section 736.0504(2), a former spouse *966 may not compel a distribution that is subject to the trustee’s discretion or attach or otherwise reach the interest, if any, which the beneficiary may have....

...Cassel-berry is not seeking an order compelling a distribution that is subject to the trustee’s discretion or attaching the beneficiary’s interest. Instead, she obtained an order granting writs of garnishment against discretionary disbursements made by a trustee exercising its discretion. Sections 736.0503 and 736.0504 codify the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in Bacardi Neither section protects a discretionary trust from garnishment by a former spouse with a valid order of support....

...to his creditors and utilities, instead of to Berlinger. He acknowledged that Sun-Trust distributed all of the trust assets to him with a final accounting. He testified that the trusts were discretionary and opined that the applicable trust statute, section 736.0504, Florida Statutes (2011), prohibits any creditor, including Cassel-berry, from attaching any distributions paid on behalf or for the benefit of the beneficiary, Berlinger....