Williams v. Espirito Santo Bank of Florida
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- HSC Medical Inc. v. Masters (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2023)
- Hart v. Wachovia Bank, National Ass'n (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
- SCP Distributors LLC v. USA Wildcat Investment Group, LLC (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2025)
- Orso v. Disner (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2024)
- Art Remedy LLC. v. Lana Moes Art, LLC (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2020)
- Martinez v. golisting.com (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
- Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2015)
- Marquez v. BlueCare Home Health Svcs., Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
- Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. v. Value Seafood, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
- USAmeriBank v. Klepal (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)
- Gigliotti Contracting North, Inc. v. TRAFFIC CONTROL PRO. OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appellant, David J. Williams, III (Williams), appeals an order granting appel-lee, Espirito Santo Bank of Florida (Espiri-to), a continuous writ of garnishment. We reverse.
After Espirito obtained a default judgment against Williams for failure to pay a note, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided for a payout schedule. The agreement did not contain any provision for garnishment. Williams, who supports three children, became unable to make the required payments, and the trial court granted Espirito’s motion for continuous writ of garnishment.
It is fundamental that garnishment statutes must be strictly construed. Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Colvin, 419 So.2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Scogin v. Scogin’s Inc., 287 So.2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Crabtree Constr. Co., Inc., 283 So.2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Section 222.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the head of a family is exempt from garnishment of disposable earnings, unless a written agreement allowing garnishment is executed.
Strictly construing this statute, we find that Williams, as head of a family, is exempt because the terms of the settlement agreement do not qualify as a written agreement allowing garnishment. Thus, since the settlement agreement does not expressly contain a garnishment provision, and since Williams as the head of the family did not execute any other written agreement to have his wages garnished, the order for continuous writ of garnishment must be reversed.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.