Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...e status of his job search. 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....

...ecution may issue, regardless of whether the judgment was obtained by the department or by the custodial parent. 413 So.2d at 753. We find Gibson's reliance on Sokolsky and Lamm to be misplaced. In Sokolsky, this Court was asked to determine whether section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1979), permitting garnishment of wages of the head of a household to enforce an order issued by a Florida court for child support, applies in those cases in which child support arrearages have been reduced to a final money judgment. The Court held that the provisions of section 61.12(1) do not apply to create an exception to the exemption from garnishment provided by section 222.11, Florida Statutes (1979), for the wages of a head of a family residing in Florida. 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....

...r and resolve this issue. The same point was presented and decided by the Second District in Gilbert v. Gilbert . In that case, the husband objected to a continuing writ of garnishment for future alimony against his spendthrift trust. 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....

...[4] No controverting affidavit has ever been filed. 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 Miami Herald....

...g that the entire arrearages should be paid out of the trust. See Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Robertson . The husband also complains of that portion of the order representing a continuing writ of garnishment to pay future alimony. He points out that section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (1981), which authorizes continuing writs of garnishment to enforce orders for alimony and child support, refers only to the garnishment of an employer....

...§ 25-2140 (consecutively); N.J. 2A:50-2 (consecutively); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 40.430 (consecutively, though there is an express provision for waiver in another statute); Or. L. § 429 (consecutively); Utah Code § 78B-6-901 (one action); Wash. Rev.Code § 61.12.120 (consecutively); Wyo....

...Appellee contends that, where as here the purpose of the garnishment proceedings is to secure the payment of alimony, child support, and medical payments, her ex-husband's pension funds are properly the subject of garnishment. As authority for her contention, appellee cites § 61.12 Fla....

...at statutory exemptions relating to civil pensions are inapplicable when in conflict with the enforcement of a decree for alimony or support." The Florida Legislature, being aware that it is the duty of a spouse to support his or her family, enacted § 61.12, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., providing for the attachment or garnishment of amounts due for alimony or child support. The First District Court of Appeal of Florida, in the case of City of Jacksonville v. Jones , Fla.App., 213 So.2d 259, interpreting § 61.12, Fla....

...Moreover, section 61.11 is not applicable here, since the husband has already removed himself from the state of Florida, and there has been no showing that he is about to remove his pension funds, although he has the right to claim a lump sum benefit at any time. We must next look at Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...Spurrier, 320 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1976) we followed the holding of City of Jacksonville v. Jones, 213 So.2d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) that Florida's "public policy" for the enforceability of such orders, as reflected by Sec. 61.12, Fla....

...ly at stake — from the consequences of his voluntary acts [2] and the requirements imposed by the standards of society and, until today's decision, by the law as well. NOTES [1] The unique remedy of a continuing writ of garnishment is authorized by Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (1981), to enforce an order of the court for periodic payment of alimony or child support or both....

...However, such monies may be garnished "to enforce the orders of the court of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support, or other orders in proceedings for dissolution, alimony, or child support... ." Hall v. Air Force Finance Center, 344 So.2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); § 61.12(1), Florida Statutes. 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 § 222.11 garnishment exemption, since the proceeding remained essentially one for child support....

...1978), is cited in support of his position. However, failure to file a controverting affidavit merely operates as an admission of the facts alleged in the § 222.12 affidavit, and neither § 222.12 nor Miami Herald precludes the court's consideration of whether § 61.12 supersedes § 222.11 as a matter of law in these circumstances....

...Although the support arrearages had been reduced to a money judgment, our conclusion was that this fact did not alter the essential character of the order as one rendered in a proceeding determining child support arrearages. Garnishment is an appropriate remedy to enforce such an order. § 61.12(1), Florida Statutes....

...ment of Cummins' arrearages accrued thereunder. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED; REMANDED. COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The 1989 Michigan divorce decree indicates neither party left the marriage with any substantial assets. [2] § 61.12, Fla....

...We have for review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Sokolsky v. Kuhn, 386 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), which expressly and directly conflicts with Schwarz v. Waddell, 389 So.2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The determinative issue in Sokolsky is whether section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1979), permitting garnishment of wages of the head of a household "to enforce the orders of the court of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support," applies where child support arrearages had been reduced to a final money judgment. We hold that where a money judgment has been obtained by the former wife, the provisions of section 61.12 do not apply to create an exception to the exemption from garnishment set forth in section 222.11, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...ings is due for his personal labor and services. No controverting affidavit was filed by Kuhn. After hearing, the trial court entered a final judgment against the garnishee and specifically stated that Sokolsky was not exempt from garnishment due to section 61.12. On appeal, the district court held that even though the support arrearages had been reduced to a money judgment, section 61.12 nevertheless applied and removed the section 222.11 garnishment exemption....

...Thus, the district court concluded, Kuhn's failure to file a controverting affidavit had no effect on the proceedings. We do not agree with the district court's conclusion that the fact that the support arrearages had been reduced to money judgment in no way altered the applicability of section 61.12 to the present case to create an exception to the exemption established by section 222.11....

...h the writ or process issued, in like manner as claims to property levied upon by writ of execution are tried, and the money or thing attached shall remain subject to the process until released by the judgment of the court which shall try the issue. Section 61.12, which creates an exception for this exemption for head of a family, provides: (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 t...

...We hold that the final money judgment entered by the trial court in the present case in favor of Kuhn against Sokolsky in the amount of $15,635 is not an order "of the court of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support" within the purview of section 61.12. When a money judgment is entered providing for execution, the provisions of section 61.12 are not applicable....

...2.12 that she file a sworn denial to Sokolsky's affidavit. On the other hand, had the past-due child support not been reduced by Kuhn to a final money judgment subject to execution, the district court would have been entirely correct in holding that section 61.12 constitutes an exception to section 222.11 and that, therefore, it would not be necessary for an ex-spouse to follow the directive of section 222.12 and to file a controverting affidavit to the other ex-spouse's affidavit claiming head of the family status....

...1st DCA 1977); and DeCastro v. DeCastro, 334 So.2d 834 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), are inconsistent with this decision, they are disapproved. Accordingly, we hold that the exception to the head of the family exemption from garnishment of an ex-spouse's wages created by section 61.12 does not apply here where the ex-wife has reduced past-due child support to a final money judgment and that, therefore, in seeking garnishment the ex-wife must comply with the requirements of section 222.12 in order to succeed in her garnishment proceeding....

...Waddell, 389 So.2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), which conflicts with Sokolsky v. Kuhn, 386 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The Fourth District holds that although the ex-wife was seeking garnishment to satisfy an order of the trial court for child support which was encompassed by section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1979), the requirement of section 222.12, 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...

...We quash the decision of the district court *979 granting the ex-husband's petition for writ of prohibition and hold that under the facts of the present case where the trial court's order awarding support had not been reduced to final money judgment subject to execution, section 61.12 applied to create an exception to sections 222.11 and 222.12, Florida Statutes (1979), and that therefore the garnishment proceedings to collect child support for the period of September 21, 1978, to January 26, 1979, should not have te...

...The district court, agreeing with Schwarz, granted the petition for writ of prohibition on this basis and found it unnecessary to address the remaining three arguments made by Schwarz in his petition. [2] The pertinent statutory provisions involved are section 61.12(1) which permits *980 garnishment of the former spouse's wages, even if he is head of a family residing in Florida, to enforce "orders of the court of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support, or other orders in proceedings...

...state; and section 222.12 which provides the procedure for claiming this exemption which includes the requirement that the former spouse controvert under oath the affidavit of the other former spouse claiming head of the family status. We hold that section 61.12(1) creates an exception to the exemption provided by section 222.11 and that therefore the provisions of section 222.12 are not applicable where the former wife is seeking garnishment pursuant to section 61.12(1) to enforce child support "orders of the court of this state." The fact that the former husband filed an affidavit claiming the status of head of the family has no legal significance in a garnishment proceeding instituted pursuant to section 61.12(1) because this provision allows garnishment of wages of the head of a family to enforce child support orders. Cf. Sokolsky v. Kuhn, 405 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1981), which recognized that section 61.12 is an exception to the exemption provided the head of the family but held that, since a final money judgment subject to execution had been obtained on past-due child support, the former spouse was precluded from proceeding under section 61.12 to enforce her judgment. The district court, in the present case, determined that it was compelled to hold that section 222.12 required termination of the garnishment proceedings despite the exception of section 61.12 in view of our opinion in The Miami Herald Publishing Co....

...for child support that had accrued subsequent to the entry of the money judgment. [2] The issues raised but not addressed by the district court were whether the trial court was without jurisdiction to garnish the wages of a head of a household under section 61.12 for collection of delinquent child support payments after the dependent child attains her majority and the obligation for payment of support terminates; whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter its order for continuing writ of...

...orts of the wife's condition. Neither point presents reversible error. The husband argues that he ought not have to pay the accrued temporary alimony and that the court ought not have allowed the collection of past due alimony pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 61.12....

...Schneider & Dunay, Jacksonville, for appellee. RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge. By this interocutory appeal, the City of Jacksonville contends that the trial judge erred in denying its motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. The sole point on appeal is: Does Section 61.12, Florida Statutes F.S.A., change the law of Florida which holds that garnishment does not lie against a municipality? Section 61.12, Florida Statutes, reads: "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 fo...

...hat 42 U.S.C.A. § 659 supersedes § 222.11 and § 222.12. The order did not so state. We disagree with any contention that the federal statute necessarily supersedes the exemption statutes, but rather find that 42 U.S.C.A. § 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...

...recent opinions — construing the effect of the statute appear contradictory and should be carefully scrutinized. In Reynolds v. Reynolds, 113 Fla. 361, 152 So. 200 (1933), the Florida Supreme Court specifically held that the predecessor statute to 61.12, section 4992, Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, applied, and was authority for the issuance of writs of garnishment to enforce orders or decrees for suit money or alimony....

...band was to pay certain attorney's fees and court costs. It should be noted that the wife did not pursue garnishment proceedings under Chapter 77, Florida Statutes, but that she relied upon Section 65.13, Florida Statutes (the predecessor statute to section 61.12)....

...3rd DCA 1968) a "final decree" was entered reducing to judgment certain past due sums owed to the former wife from the husband under a divorce decree previously entered. The wife first brought an action to garnish the husband's wages, then filed a motion attempting to proceed under Section 61.12....

...3rd DCA 1973), the court reversed an order denying a motion to dissolve a writ of garnishment. The writ was issued upon a judgment which authorized execution for an unpaid attorney's fee in a prior divorce action. Based upon its prior opinion in Noyes v. Cooper, supra, the court concluded that the provisions of Section 61.12 do not apply "for collection of a judgment (with execution authorized) which has been entered for nonpayment thereof." Id....

...In DeCastro, after judgment of dissolution was entered, the trial court entered a money judgment against the former husband for unpaid temporary alimony. The husband contended on appeal that the trial court should not have allowed the collection of past due alimony under Section 61.12, citing Noyes v....

...on so as to advance the remedy provided and give effect to the intention of the legislature as gathered from the language used. 30 Fla. Jur. Statutes section 127. In the present case, the wife, Juanita Hall, did all that she was required to do under Section 61.12, Chapter 77, and appropriate Florida cases....

...1976)) There is nothing in the federal act contrary to nor in derogation of Florida Statutes 222.11 and 222.12. However, this Court has gone further than did either of the parties and apparently further than the trial judge and has introduced, without benefit of briefs or argument, Florida Statute 61.12....

...l verbiage and restrict its application to orders. Accordingly, if the trial judge held that 42 U.S.C.A. § 659 supersedes Florida Statutes 222.11 and 222.12, as I conceive he did, I would reverse. If, on the other hand, he construed Florida Statute 61.12 as being applicable to judgments as well as orders, of which there is no evidence before us, I would also reverse on that holding....

...We are saying here that where the state has waived its right not to be sued in a particular type of action, the form the suit takes makes all the difference. [2] The legislative decision to permit garnishment proceedings against the state to enforce court-ordered alimony suit money or child support, see § 61.12, Fla. Stat. (1981), while exposing the state to a greater number of lawsuits, does not expose it to lawsuits by an unknown number of creditors seeking to recover moneys due them from judgment debtors. More importantly, Section 61.12 is a perfect example of a clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity for garnishment proceedings in a discrete setting, and further evidence that no such waiver has been made for garnishment proceedings generally.

...household." No controverting affidavit was ever filed. Instead, the former wife filed an unsworn motion, challenging the former husband's exemption on the ground that the amounts due fell within the statutory exception for support orders recited in Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975). That statute provided as follows and is identical to Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1979): Attachment or garnishment of amounts due for alimony....

...it is dissolved. No more of the salary shall be retained by virtue of the writ than is provided for in the order. The Supreme Court rejected the same argument made here by respondent that Section 222.12 did not apply to garnishments made pursuant to Section 61.12 and held: The Third District Court of Appeal has previously held that Section 222.12 must be strictly construed in favor of the debtor....

...Clemons v. Morris, 350 So.2d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Further, the fact that the Supreme Court's decision involved attorneys' fees, not child support, we believe not to be distinguishable. Attorneys' fees and child support are treated equally under Section 61.12 in that the statute concerns itself with orders involving alimony, suit money and child support....

PER CURIAM. The husband appealed a non-final order entered after final judgment granting a continuing writ of garnishment against his salary, pursuant to section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1991), solely for the collection of the former wife’s attorney’s fees....

DAUKSCH, Judge. The question on appeal is whether Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), applies to judgments for alimony, suit money and child support as well as orders for the same....

...Air Force Finance Center, etc., 344 So.2d 1340, 1343 (Fla.1st DCA 1977), an *520 swers the question. Sub judice, the mother obtained a foreign judgment against the father for child support and sued in Florida to make the foreign judgment a Florida judgment and then to garnish his salary. The husband defended by saying Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), only applied to orders and not to judgments. We like the First District Court of Appeal in Hall, supra, hold that Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), applies to judgments for alimony, suit money and child support, as well as orders for the same....

OWEN, Judge. This appeal brings for review an order of the trial court dissolving a writ of garnishment. The question to be decided is whether on the undisputed facts of this case F.S.1967, Section 61.12, F.S.A., 1 permits garnishing the wages of the head of a household to satisfy a judgment based upon a contractual obligation to pay child support....

...F.S.1967, Section 222.11, F. S.A. 2 The court entered its order discharging the writ, finding that the former husband was entitled to the exemption and that the appellant’s judgment was not within the purview of the exception provided by F.S.1967, Section 61.12, F.S.A....

...estioned in this court nor does the record affirmatively show the fact to be otherwise. Assuming this fact, appellee’s wages would be exempt from garnishment by virtue of F.S.1967, Section 222.11, F.S.A., unless the exception provided by F.S.1967, Section 61.12, F.S.A., would apply....

...support is not enough to convert the judgment into an order of a court of this state for support in an action “for divorce or alimony.” 4 Affirmed. REED, J., concurs. WHITE, JOS. S., Associate Judge, concurs specially, with opinion. . F.S.1967, Section 61.12, F.S.A....

claimed by defendant is not available because of § 61.12 Fla. Stat., F.S.A., whereby there was authorized

framework for resolution of this issue. Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (2017) is titled, “Attachment

facing us are (1) whether garnishment under section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1979),1 may be obtained prior

...This issue is rendered moot, however, by counsel’s concession in open court (transcribed and made part of the record on appeal) that appellant is, indeed, entitled to claim the homestead exemption. The stage is thus set for the main thrust of appellant’s appeal. Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1981) carves out of the Section 222.11 exemption an exception where the debt for which garnishment is sought arises from “.....

...This question has recently, and irrevocably been put to rest in appellant’s favor. Sokolsky v. Kuhn, 405 So.2d 975 (Fla.1981). We therefore merely echo the holding of our supreme court that reducing arrearages to a final judgment precludes resort to the exception of Section 61.12....

...By its oral pronouncement, the trial court declined altogether to hear the motion, determining (based upon arguments 3 This court affirmed the order dissolving the writ of garnishment in Martinez v. Golisting.com, Inc., 233 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), holding that a continuing writ of garnishment under section 61.12(2), Fla....

...prior writ of garnishment appeal was limited to its facts and has no application to this appeal or the motion for contempt below. Even a cursory reading of the opinion reveals that our holding involved the construction of the continuing writ of garnishment statute (section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes), which must be strictly construed....

...15, Section 1673, U.S.C.A., those amounts in excess of 25% of the husband’s disposable earnings were exempt from garnishment. In response, appellee’s counsel contended neither of the defenses were applicable because the amounts claimed to be due and owing were in fact child support, for which garnishment would lie under Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975) and Vol....

...The appellants have raised the following points by this interlocutory appeal. First, that the trial court is without power to enter a continuing garnishment against future earnings; secondly, that attorney fees do not constitute an exception to Section 222.11, Florida Statutes (1975), as provided in Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975), to permit garnishment of wages of the head of a household; and, lastly, that attorney fees do not constitute support payments so as to permit garnishment under Vol....

...We find the latter two points to be without merit. The parties herein have argued at great length whether or not attorney fees constitute support payments under the facts of this case, so as to permit garnishment of the husband’s wages. It is not necessary to determine this question herein, as Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975) provides: * it* * * * * “ * * * money or other things due to any person * * * 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...

...Appellant, the City of Tampa, contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for dissolution of writ of garnishment. The writ was for attorney’s fees owed to appellee garnisher, Stacey Hines, by a city employee. The city argues that such a writ may not be enforced against a municipality under section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Appellee, the wife in a dissolution of marriage action, sought to garnish the wages of her former husband, who is employed by the city as a police officer. Her basis was $3,617.55 owed to her under a final judgment, which followed the final judgment of dissolution, for an assessment of attorney’s fees against the husband. Section 61.12(1) provides for garnishment to enforce and satisfy the orders and judgments of the court[s] of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support, or other orders in proceedings for dissolution, alimony, or child support; when the money ......

...may be enforced in the same manner as alimony and support of children upon proper judgment therefor being entered.”). Black’s Law Dictionary 1286 (5th ed. 1979) also includes attorney’s fees within the definition of “suit money.” Further, section 61.12(1), as quoted above, refers to garnishment to enforce “other orders in proceedings for.dissolution.” And finally, we adopt the First District’s above quoted construction of the statute in Hall as being “remedial and .......

writ of garnishment is not available under section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), for collecting

...Upon completion of her marital dissolution action, Cindy Reyf, the wife, obtained a final judgment against Alan Reyf, the husband, for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $13,194. The wife then sought to obtain a continuing writ of garnishment under Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1991), against the husband’s salary to satisfy the judgment. The trial court refused to issue the continuing writ, and we affirm. Section 61.12(1) provides for “garnishment to enforce and satisfy the orders and judgments of the courtfs] of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support....

...Hollander, 566 So.2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Subpart (2) provides that a continuing writ of garnishment will be available only to collect “alimony or child support or both”, but does not mention suit money or attorneys’ fees. 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. State v. Hayles, 240 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970); Greenhut Constr. Co. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Therefore, we conclude that a con-tinning writ of garnishment is not available under Section 61.12 to satisfy a final judgment for attorneys’ fees ancillary to a dissolution action. Compare Nichols v. Schwarz, 504 So.2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (continuing writ of garnishment authorized by § 61.12(2) only for collection of future periodic payments of alimony or child support). Affirmed. . Although Section 61.12(1) was formerly held not to apply to final judgments, Sokolsky v....

...Appellant, in 1960, recovered a final judgment covering a number of items, including periodic alimony. The appellee’s continuing duty to make periodic alimony payments ceased in 1965. In 1980, the appellant sought a continuing writ of garnishment, pursuant to Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...s no longer a continuing or present duty of support, and 2) a continuing writ of garnishment was not available under chapter 77 of the Florida Statutes at the time the orders in question were entered. Appellee responds that recent amendments to both section 61.12 and chapter 77 of the Florida Statutes authorize continuing writs of garnishment against judgments generally as an exception to the exemption for the wages of the head of a family....

...ted an exception to this exemption in section 61.-12(1), Florida Statutes, by providing that a writ of garnishment was available to a creditor to enforce an order for alimony and child support as against the wages and salary of the head of a family. Section 61.12(2) referenced chapter 77 and any other law to the contrary and provided that the court was authorized to issue a continuing writ of garnishment to enforce periodic payments of alimony and child support. In construing those statutory sections, several cases held that the continuing writ of garnishment was not available under section 61.12(2) unless the order being enforced was a current continuing order for support or alimony....

...Ginsberg, 399 So.2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Other cases held that, because the statute referred to “orders” of the court for alimony and support, rather than a judgment, reduction of the amounts due to a final judgment made the exception contained in 61.12 inapplicable and the judgment unenforceable via a continuing writ of garnishment pursuant to Sokolsky v. Kuhn, 405 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1981), and Sweeten v. Anderson, 414 So.2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In 1984 the legislature amended section 61.12(1) to include “judgments” as well as “orders” within the purview of the statute and thus available for enforcement by garnishment as an exception to the exemption contained in section 222.11. However, appellant points out that said amendment did not include section 61.12(2) as the word *109 “judgments” was not added therein....

will defend garnishment suits, for example, section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes, provides: "So much as

...on sovereign immunity grounds. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered an order denying it. 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 unclaimed property; a one-time transfer of the unclaimed property did not add much work for the State compared with ongoing garnishments; unclaimed funds wer...

...This appeal followed. II. The central focus of this appeal is whether sovereign immunity bars O’Connor from reaching the unclaimed funds at issue. The Department contends that neither the garnishment statute, section 61.12, nor the unclaimed property statute, section 717.124, clearly and unequivocally waive sovereign immunity for the purposes of allowing judgment creditors to reach such funds....

...She argues that sovereign immunity is not implicated because the State is merely a custodian of the property in the unclaimed funds accounts, not the title holder or owner of the accounts. Alternatively, even if sovereign immunity were implicated, section 61.12 waives sovereign immunity for her garnishment of the accounts....

...Finally, O’Connor argues that the Department’s position violates the law of the case, set forth in O’Connor I. In reply, the Department again emphasizes that no clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity has been shown, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that section 61.12 does so....

...established by court orders, as O’Connor has established under Chapter 717. On these grounds, the trial court’s order denying the Department’s motion to dismiss and dissolve was proper. B. Next for review is section 61.12 which—although not a model in clarity— has been deemed sufficiently clear and unequivocal to waive sovereign immunity as to garnishment of wages. O’Connor argues that this waiver of sovereign immunity should extend to unclaimed property for which she holds a judgment. Section 61.12(1), which outlines the scope of the “monies or other things” that are subject to attachment or garnishment, states: 11  (1) So much as the court orders of the money or other things du...

...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. (Emphasis added). This section is followed by section 61.12(2), which states: (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....

...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. (Emphases added). Read it its entirety, section 61.12 provides a clear and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity for garnishment of salaries paid by the State; but it does not 12 independently contain a clear waiver of immunity for writs to garnish the accounts at issue. The language in section 61.12(1), “when the money or other thing is due for the personal labor or service of the person or otherwise,” could be read broadly to include the monies now held in the unclaimed property accounts. § 61.12(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Language that follows in subsection (1), however, is limited to “when the money or thing sought to be attached or garnished is the salary of a public officer, state or county . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). Further, section 61.12(2) is couched in terms of garnishment of salaries on a “periodic and continuing basis for so long as the court may determine . . . .” § 61.12(2), Fla....

...While it does allow for garnishment for child support, “any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding,” id., the waiver of sovereign immunity extends only to salaries paid by the State (not the unclaimed property of third parties custodially held by the State). For this reason, section 61.12 does not provide a basis for the relief O’Connor seeks. III. In conclusion, O’Connor is entitled to the unclaimed property of her former spouse to satisfy his obligations flowing from the dissolution judgment entered against him....

...See Section 222.11, Florida Statutes (1975). The court held that neither the July 17, 1975, judgment for $20,200 nor the March 7, 1977, judgment for $5,850 was enforceable by a writ of garnishment because they were *1257 not of the character of orders described in Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Thus, appellant asserts that the judgment of March 7, 1977, for arrearages accruing from the date of the judgment of July 17, 1975, was a judgment of a court of this state for monies due on an order for child support and alimony which is collectible by a writ of garnishment pursuant to Section 61.12....

...However, in view of the sentences emphasized above, we believe that the court intended to adopt and enforce the agreement for support of the wife and children. Therefore, the final judgment of March 7, 1977, was for monies due on a court order of the type described in Section 61.12, and the denial of appellant’s motion for the issuance of a writ of garnishment to enforce this judgment was in error....

...We agree with the majority position in Hall v. Air Force Finance Center, 344 So.2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and hold that a final judgment for accrued child support and alimony due under a court order for the same is collectible by a writ of garnishment issued pursuant to Section 61.12....

...pellant $300 per month child support. These sums were paid pending the first appeal. The $5,850 results from the difference between this $300 per month and the monthly payment of $600 per month required by the reinstated judgment of July 17, 1975. . Section 61.12 provides in pertinent part: So much as the court orders of the money or other thing 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...

continuing writ of garnishment, pursuant to Section 61.12, Florida Statutes (1981), against Sweeting’s

...5th DCA 2005); Laliberte v. Laliberte, 698 So. 2d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Begetting a child is not an involuntary act. Absent some special circumstance, the presence of subsequent children will not justify a deviation from child support guidelines. See § 61.12(b), Fla....

...2d 958, 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).1 For the foregoing reason, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 Upward modifications of child support are treated differently. See § 61.12(b), Fla....

...The garnishment affidavit filed by her is entitled “Garnishment After Judgment.” See Fla.Stat. Chapter 77, F.S.A. Later, however, she filed a motion claiming generally that she was attempting to proceed under the authority of Fla.Stat. § 65.13 (1965), now Fla.Stat. § 61.12 (1967), F.S.A....

...The former husband claimed exemption as head of a family residing in Florida. See Fla.Stat. § 222.11, F.S.A. The trial judge entered an order providing that the former wife could not garnish her former husband’s salary under Fla.Stat. § 65.13. The former wife, Noyes, has appealed from that order. Fla.Stat. § 61.12 (1967), F.S.A., which is substantially the same as Fla.Stat....

...er to enforce the decree of a court of this state for alimony, suit money or support, or other orders or decrees made by a Florida Court in a suit for divorce or alimony. The former wife cannot prevail under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 65.13 (now § 61.12), F.S.A.; and is governed by the general law relative to garnishment after judgment....

...Ap-pellee then filed a motion to enforce the writ of garnishment and the trial court entered the appealed final judgment against Raymond and Dillon. Section 222.11, Florida Statutes This section exempts the wages of the head of a family from a writ of garnishment. Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes This section does not provide for continuing writs of garnishment. Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes This section provides for continuing writs of garnishment, but only for orders that involve child support or periodic alimony....

...But the evidence fully supports the apparent conclusion below that claimant adequately established an interim diagnosis which the catheterization may show to be causally related to the events on the date of the claimed “accident.” We find neither logic nor controlling precedent to compel denial of the claim. Cf Section 61.12(h), and 83.20, Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law....

...McRae, 52 So.2d 908, 909 (Fla.1951) (holding courts of equity have the inherent power to protect children and to do all things necessary for the administration of justice and thus may enjoin a party’s attempt to defeat court orders through alienation of property); see also § 61.12, Fla.Stat. (1993). However, the present record fails to show whether any funds that may be derived from the workers’ compensation claim will be subject to equitable distribution or to garnishment as provided in section 61.12....