Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...[t]he judgment fails to provide that payments should be made through the Central Government Depository, as required by § 61.13(d)" and "fails to provide for entry of a separate order requiring that support be paid by income deduction as required by § 61.1301(1)." The trial court denied the former wife's petition and ordered the former husband to continue paying child support directly to the former wife because the parties agreed at the time of the divorce that he would pay his support directly to her, and he had always paid on time....

...Fifteen days after receipt of the affidavit, the depository shall notify both parties that future payments shall be paid through the depository. This provision appears to provide for subsequent payments through the depository only upon a default, which did not happen here. Before the legislature amended related section 61.1301 in 1997, it provided that "[u]pon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for alimony, for child support, or for alimony and child support, the court shall enter a separate order for income deduction if one has not been entered." § 61.1301(1)(a), Fla....

...73 (Sept. 30, 1985) and citing Note, Congress Demands Stricter Child Support Enforcement: Florida Requires Major Reforms to Comply, 10 Nova L.J. 1371 (1986)). Eight days before the trial court entered the modification order, the legislature amended section 61.1301 to require that "[u]pon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing or modifying an obligation for alimony, for child support, or for alimony and child support, the court shall include provisions for income deduction of the alimony and/or child support in the order.... The order establishing, enforcing, or modifying the obligation shall direct that payments be made through the depository. " § 61.1301(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); 1997 Fla. Laws ch. 97-170 (emphasis added). Section 61.1301(1)(c) further provides, "The income deduction order is effective immediately unless the court upon good cause shown finds that income deduction shall be effective upon a delinquency in an amount specified by the court but not to excee...

...shares of support. There must be a new evidentiary hearing in order to arrive at a proper award under the child support guidelines. See § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (1989). Second, the income deduction order is facially defective for violation of paragraph 61.1301(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), and the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (b), as amended. An income deduction order is in substance a continuing writ of garnishment and is, as a matter of federal and state law, subject to the percentage limitations set forth in the federal Act. [2] Indeed, paragraph 61.1301(1)(b) specifies several provisions that any income deduction order must contain; among other things, the order "shall ... *405 [d]irect a payor not to deduct in excess of the amounts allowed under s. 303(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 1673(b), as amended." § 61.1301(1)(b)(3), Fla....

...nning of such workweek. The terms "earnings" and "disposable earnings" are defined for purposes of the federal Act in 15 U.S.C. section 1672. See also id. § 1673(c) (prohibiting state court orders in excess of the limits just stated). See generally § 61.1301(1)(e), Fla....

...However, the multiple written orders all specify a weekly amount. [4] By separate order this court will set a temporary support award pending the trial court's convening of a prompt hearing to set a temporary child support award consistent with the child support guidelines as well as section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, and 15 U.S.C....

...It also provides that he must make child support payments directly to the former wife upon the child's seventeenth birthday, i.e., upon the vacation of the home by the mother and child. We hold that the trial court's determination of child support payments violates section 61.1301(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides in part: "Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for alimony, for child support, or for alimony and child support, other than a temporary order, the court...

...hild support payments until the child's seventeenth birthday. First, we note that the legislature did authorize some trial court discretion regarding the effective date of the income deduction orders, based upon a finding of good cause. According to section 61.1301(1)(c): The income deduction order is effective immediately unless the court upon good cause shown finds that the income deduction order shall be effective upon a delinquency in an amount specified by the court but not to exceed 1 mont...

...INCOME DEDUCTION ORDERS Income deduction is when the court ordered support comes straight from the obligor's wages. When the court enters an order is entered beginning, enforcing, or changing a spouse *1259 or child support duty, the court must enter a separate order for income deduction. This order must follow with section 61.1301, Florida Statutes....

...me deduction order because of mistake of fact regarding the amount of support owed under the court's support order, the amount of arrearages (payments that are past due) of support, or identity of the obligor (the person who must pay the money). See section 61.1301(2), Florida Statutes, for additional information....

...____________________________\ CHILD SUPPORT INCOME DEDUCTION ORDER [✓ check all which apply, fill in all blanks that apply] THIS COURT entered an order on ______________ establishing support obligations owed by the obligor, { name } _______________, whose social security number is ____________. In compliance with section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, IT IS ADJUDGED: INCOME DEDUCTION: From all income due and payable to obligor __________, the following amounts shall be deducted: A....

...Based upon the reversal of the financial awards, we also *243 reverse the denial of attorney's fees, leaving that issue for redetermination upon remand. Finally, the court erred in not ordering an income deduction order for the husband's child support obligation. Such an order is statutorily required. See § 61.1301(1)(a), Fla....

...The provisions of section 61.076(2) and (3) are intended merely to assure that trial court orders include the information required by federal law.) We find nothing in either statute to manifest a clear legislative intent to repeal the anti-alienation clause of the City's Pension Plan. Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...f the legislature. Alvarez v. Board of Trustees, 580 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1991). In Alvarez, the Board of Trustees of the City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa challenged an income deduction order entered pursuant to section 61.1301 which required that it deduct from a participant's pension benefits child support payments. The court noted that section 61.1301 "contain[ed] the complete chapter 61 mechanism for income deduction." Id. at 153. Because section 61.1301(1)(b)1....

...r the amount required by the court to meet the obligor's [alimony or child] support obligation" and section 61.046(4) defined "income" as including "retirement benefits" and "pensions" paid by "any unit of local government," the court concluded that section 61.1301 was sufficiently irreconcilable with the pension plan's anti-alienation clause to manifest a legislative intent to repeal the latter. Accordingly, it held that the trustees of the plan could be ordered to deduct child support payments from a participant's pension benefits, pursuant to section 61.1301. However, Alvarez is of no assistance to Anna because (1) it states that section 61.1301 "contains the complete chapter 61 mechanism for income deduction"; and (2) section 61.1301 is expressly limited in its application to collection of alimony and child support....

...Rather, it was expressly for the purpose of effectuating the trial court's plan for equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant is correct when it insists that, although the QDRO would have been enforceable as an income deduction order under section 61.1301 had it been for collection of either alimony or child support, it cannot be used to force direct payment to Anna of a portion of Jose's pension benefits in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets....

...That is an issue for the legislature. It is our responsibility to interpret what the legislature has written. However, we note that, should the legislature conclude that no valid basis exists for such a distinction, the problem can easily be corrected by amendment of section 61.1301 to include payments ordered to achieve an equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets as well as payments of alimony and child support....

...Additionally, this Court has generally held that income deduction orders are not available to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Colligan v. Colligan, 759 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(recognizing that income deduction order pursuant to section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, is limited to collection of child support and alimony, and not appropriate to secure equitable distribution)....

...Loper, P.A., Tampa, for respondent. KOGAN, Justice. We review Board of Trustees of the City Pension Fund v. Alvarez, 563 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), wherein the district court certified the following question as being of great public importance: DOES SECTION 61.1301, WHICH MANDATES THE ENTRY OF INCOME DEDUCTION ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURSUANT TO A TRIAL COURT ORDER, IMPLICITLY REPEAL THE PROVISIONS OF A SPECIAL ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE PROHIBITING SUCH GARNISHMENT *152 OF PENSION BENEFITS FOR DEBT OR OTHER LEGAL PROCESS? Id. at 1112. We have jurisdiction, pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. This case involves a motion to dissolve an income deduction order, entered pursuant to section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1987), which directs the respondent, the Board of Trustees of the City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa (the Board of Trustees), to deduct child support payments from the pension benefits of Phillip Alvarez, the petitioner's former husband....

...ocess; and 2) the order violates section 175.241, Florida Statutes (1987), [2] which exempts municipal firefighters' pension benefits from legal process. The trial court denied the motion, finding that retirement benefits and pensions are subject to section 61.1301 deduction orders, because they are specifically included in the definition of "income" under section 61.046(4), Florida Statutes (1987), and "[o]nly Veterans Administration disability, and unemployment compensation benefits are excluded from this definition." The court reasoned that section 61.1301, which provides for the entry of income deduction orders, was enacted subsequently to chapter 74-613 and section 175.241 and therefore because of the irreconcilable conflict between the provisions, the latest expression of legislative intent should control. On appeal, the district court reversed. The court reasoned that as a matter of public policy section 61.1301 should generally apply to disability and or retirement pensions....

...irefighters' and police officers' fund, was ratified by a special act, and a special act must prevail over a conflicting subsequent general act unless the legislative intent to repeal the special act is clearly shown. 563 So.2d at 1111. Finding that section 61.1301 does not address the exemption from garnishment of such benefits "or otherwise demonstrate legislative intent to repeal the special act," 563 So.2d at 1112, the district court concluded that the special act controls. The district court further concluded that section 175.241, a general law that specifically covers the subject, must control over section 61.1301, a general law that is general in its coverage. Id. The district court certified the above-quoted question, which we rephrase as follows: DO SECTIONS 61.1301 AND 61.046(4), WHICH, RESPECTIVELY, MANDATE THE ENTRY OF INCOME DEDUCTION ORDERS FOR COURT-ORDERED ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT AND DEFINE THE "INCOME" SUBJECT TO SUCH ORDERS, IMPLICITLY REPEAL THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 74-613, LAWS OF FLORIDA,...

...Town of Indian River Shores v. Richey, 348 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1977); City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128, 22 So.2d 627 (1945). The income deduction provisions of chapter 61 were first enacted in chapter 84-110, sections 3 and 4, Laws of Florida, and codified at sections 61.1301 and 61.181(3)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984). [3] Section 61.1301 mandated the issuance of an income deduction order directing a person or agency providing or administering income to the person obligated for payment of child support to deduct from "all moneys due and payable" such amounts as are required to meet the support obligation. Section 61.181(3)(b) provided for enforcement of an order of alimony or child support through income deduction. Both sections 61.1301 and 61.181(3)(b) expressly included retirement benefits and pensions in the term "moneys due," which thus would be subject to income deduction. In 1986, the income deduction provisions of chapter 61 were extensively amended in chapter 86-220, Laws of Florida. Section 61.1301, as amended in section 119 of chapter 86-220, contains the complete chapter 61 mechanism for income deduction. This section, as codified in Florida Statutes (1987), reads in pertinent part: 61.1301 Income deduction orders....

...between the income deduction provisions of chapter 61 and the provisions of both chapter 74-613 and section 175.241 that would exempt firefighters' pension benefits from income deduction. Section 61.046(4) defines the income that can be reached by a section 61.1301 income deduction order very broadly to include "any form of payment to an individual, regardless of source." This definition expressly includes "disability benefits, annuity and retirement benefits, pensions" and any other payments ma...

...s in pertinent part: The pensions, annuities, or other benefits accrued or accruing to any person under the provisions of this act ... shall not be subject to execution or attachment or to any legal process whatsoever, and shall be unassignable. [3] Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...support. Gurene v. Gurene, 575 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We, therefore, reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an income deduction order and to redetermine if good cause exists to delay the effectiveness of the order in accordance with section 61.1301(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...oneous or contrary to law. See, e.g., Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 525, 526 (M.D.Fla.1988). The nature of defendant's objections confines the inquiry to alleged errors of law. Plaintiff's cause of action relies upon Fla.Stat. § 61.1301(2)(j)....

...Garrett, 903 F.2d 1455, 1463 (11th Cir.1990); Brown v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ala., 898 F.2d 1556, 1571 n. 17 (11th Cir.1990); Denis v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 846, 848-49 (11th Cir. 1986). The central contention before the Court, then, is the proper construction of Fla.Stat. § 61.1301(2)(j)(2)....

...The Magistrate found the remedy of punitive damages available because this remedy appears to be available under a different retaliatory discharge statute, Fla.Stat. § 440.205, and the Florida legislature has explicitly excluded the remedy in some statutes. The presence of a civil penalty in § 61.1301(2)(j)(1), the Magistrate opined, is less significant than these other indicia of legislative intent. In denying the motion to strike, the Magistrate added, "since no court has expressly addressed the question of whether punitive damages are recoverable under § 61.1301, the Court's denial is without prejudice so that any forthcoming cases might be considered on a later motion." Order entered February 14, 1990, at 2-3. Defendant's appeal is not based on new authority; rather, defendant offers a critique of the Magistrate's construction of § 61.1301. Defendant proposes that the purpose of punitive damages is fully accomplished by the presence of a civil penalty in the statute. Moreover, the listing of available remedies within § 61.1301(2)(j)(2), defendant argues, excludes those remedies not listed, such as punitive damages....

...The divisibility of the civil penalty from the civil action, however, does not settle the punitive damages issue. As the parties concede, the common law of Florida does not recognize the tort of retaliatory discharge. See, e.g., Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 524 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla.1988). Section 61.1301(2)(j)(2) created a new cause of action and stated a list of remedies: "The employee is entitled to reinstatement and all wages and benefits lost plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred." Defendant urges that this listing be read as all inclusive and the Court concurs....

...Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 255, 104 S.Ct. 615, 625, 78 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), although it should be emphasized that the actual scope of damages under the statute remains undetermined. [2] It does not suggest how to interpret the specific listing of remedies in § 61.1301(2)(j)(2)....

...See Martin v. United Security Servs., Inc., 314 So.2d 765, 771-72 (Fla.1975). By analogy to the jury service anti-retaliation statute and the evolution of the wrongful death cause of action, the Court concludes that the enumeration of specific remedies in § 61.1301(2)(j)(2) constitutes an exclusion of the remedies not so listed....

...1339, 1345, 108 L.Ed.2d 519 (1990) (quoting Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 417-18, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 1835, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987)). Defendant's objection challenges the Magistrate's conclusion on the second inquiry, the nature of the remedy sought under § 61.1301(2)(j)(2)....

...the treatment of these causes of action from ones which are purely legal for seventh amendment purposes. [4] Id. at 1348-49; *1451 Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 2794 n. 7, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989). A better analogy for § 61.1301(2)(j)(2) lies in the federal statute providing protection to federal court jurors from retaliation in their employment in response to jury service, 28 U.S.C....

...§ 1875(d)(2), and for equitable relief such as reinstatement, id. § 1875(b)(2). These provisions compare favorably to the language of the present cause of action, which confers an entitlement "to reinstatement and all wages and benefits lost plus attorney's fees and costs incurred." Fla.Stat. § 61.1301(2)(j)(2)....

...ed, but also in failing to order withholding of an additional 20 percent for arrearages. The former husband does not contest the appropriateness of an income deduction order being entered as to the child support obligation in the modification order. Section 61.1301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) states, "Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying ... a child support obligation, the court shall enter a separate order for income deduction if one has not been entered." Section 61.1301(1)(b) provides in part: (b) The income deduction order shall : 1....

...We do not believe the legislature under the circumstances enumerated above intended to make income deduction orders optional. The legislature has, however, recognized that enforcement of an arrearage via an income deduction order should be left to the trial court's discretion. Section 61.1301(3) provides: It is the intent of the Legislature that this section may be used to collect arrearages in child support payments which have accrued against an obligor. (Emphasis added). This legislative intent was added to section 61.1301 by Ch. 88-176, § 5, at 653, Laws of Fla., subsequent to the enactment of section 61.1301(1)(b)(2)....

...The interest calculations and award are consistent with Florida law. See Applegate; Leone v. Weed, 474 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Butchart v. Butchart, 469 So.2d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Melvin v. Melvin, 391 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 1981). NOTES [1] § 61.1301, Fla....

...Petersburg be sold and its proceeds equally divided between the parties. Additionally, the husband was ordered to pay lump sum alimony to the wife in the amount of $60,000. The court awarded the wife a one-half interest in the husband's retirement and entered an income-deduction order pursuant to section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1987), requiring the police department to pay one-half of the pension directly to the wife....

...Schorb quitclaimed and assigned his Florida property to his wife, as well as granting his wife a security interest in his *987 truck, and he was released from the county jail. First, Mr. Schorb argues that the lower court had no authority to issue an income-deduction order to the police department under section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...one has not been entered. Copies of the orders shall be served on the obligee and obligor. If the support order directs that support payments be made through the depository, the court shall provide a copy of the support order to the depository... . § 61.1301(1)(a), Fla....

...The definitional section of the statute provides that an "obligor" is "a person responsible for making support payments pursuant to an alimony or child support order." § 61.046(9), Fla. Stat. (1987). The definitional section of chapter 61 does not contain a definition for the term "support" as it applies to section 61.1301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Acme Concrete Corp., 103 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1958). See also Medical Center Hosp. v. Bowen, 811 F.2d 1448 (11th Cir.1987) (there is a presumption that the same words used in different parts of an act have the same meaning). We see no valid reason to employ a definition of "support" in section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1987), which varies from the definition in section 409.2554(10), Florida Statutes (1987). Accordingly, we hold that section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1987), should be used by trial courts only to enforce orders which provide support to a child or to a former spouse living with a child....

...Schorb to establish the necessary bank accounts and to give the necessary instructions to the police department to accomplish the desired result. See City of Miami v. Spurrier, 320 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 334 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1976). The trial court simply cannot use section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1987), to accomplish the result....

...ed 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. Stat. (1991). [3] § 61.1301(1), Fla....

...The Vizcaino court agreed with the employer that it could not be ordered to pay the former wife pension benefits directly in order to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. It expressly rejected the argument that the order could be upheld under *233 Florida law under section 61.1301, since that statute authorizes the use of income deduction orders to collect alimony and child support....

...On May 1, 2003, the trial court approved the General Master's Report and adopted its recommendation as its order, which included Larsen's possible arrest for contempt in the event he failed to pay the purge amount. The court also acknowledged the mandatory income deduction provision of section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, and directed payment to the Support Enforcement Division....

...a participating spouse's municipal pension benefit as part of an equitable distribution plan). [5] The court acknowledged the case of Alvarez v. Board of Trustees, 580 So.2d 151 (Fla.1991). In that case the Florida Supreme Court held that Fla. Stat. § 61.1301, a provision concerning income deduction orders for alimony and child support, was irreconcilable with and resulted in the repeal of an anti-alienation clause in a municipal police and firefighter's pension plan. Alvarez, 580 So.2d at 153-154. However, the Vizcaino court pointed out that § 61.1301 was expressly limited to the collection of alimony and child support....

...That is an issue for the legislature. It is our responsibility to interpret what the legislature has written. However, we note that, should the legislature conclude that no valid basis exists for such a distinction, the problem can easily be corrected by amendment of section 61.1301 to include payments ordered to achieve an equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets as well as payments of alimony and child support....

...payments to Victoria Louise Motil, the wife, through the Pinellas County Central Depository. He argues that the trial court impermissibly used the income deduction order to effectuate the court's equitable distribution scheme. We agree and reverse. Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1997), specifically limits a trial court's utilization of income deduction orders to those payments that represent alimony or child support....

...The wife argues that the husband agreed to this language and therefore should now be estopped from raising this issue on appeal. However, the law is clear that income deduction orders may not be used to achieve equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets. See § 61.1301, Fla....

...We grant rehearing and agree that such an order was improper, thus reversing on this point as well. In Nash v. Nash, 688 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), reversing the entry of the income deduction order solely for the payment of attorney's fees, we held that section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1995), was in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. The First District addressed the very issue raised by the former husband in Board of Pension Trustees of City General Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), stating that "section 61.1301 is expressly limited in its application to collection of either alimony and child support." The court held that an income deduction order could not be entered for the purpose of effectuating the trial court's plan for equitable distribution of the parties' marital assets, and we agree....

...discretion. § 61.16, Fla. Stat. (1995); Mueller v. Mueller, 307 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). However, we reverse the entry of the income deduction order solely for the payment of attorney's fees on the basis that such an order is not sanctioned by section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...nd's wages by way of an income deduction order directing payment through the central depository. It is well settled that an income deduction order may not be entered for purposes of effectuating the trial court's plan for equitable distribution. See § 61.1301, Fla....

...Stat.(2000); see also Colligan v. Colligan, 759 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3DCA 2000); Nash v. Nash, 688 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Board of Pension Trustees of the City General Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ("[S]ection 61.1301 is expressly limited in its application to collection of either alimony and child support.") Accordingly, the order under review is reversed....

...On appeal the husband opposed the deduction order based on the fact that the wife no longer has minor children living with her. The district court held that an alimony obligation is properly enforced though an income deduction order, regardless of whether minor children are living with the former spouse. Section 61.1301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), reads in pertinent part: Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an alimony or a child support obligation, the court shall enter a separate order for income deduction if one has not been entered....

...n order to enforce an alimony obligation because such orders are appropriate only to enforce child support payments. In support of his argument, the husband cites Schorb, in which the Second District Court of Appeal held that trial courts should use section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1987) only to enforce orders that provide support to a child or to a former spouse living with a child....

...By applying rules of statutory construction, Schorb ventured outside the literal language of the statute and arrived at a statutory interpretation inconsistent with Florida's policy of providing for former spouses in financial need. [*] As the district court properly noted, the text of section 61.1301(1)(a) "is broad enough to include impecunious former spouses even if they have no minor children living with them." 614 So.2d at 533, n....

...The husband argues that the amendment of section 88.031(20), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992), defining "support" to include "support for a child, or child and spouse, or former spouse who is living with the child or children," further reflects the legislature's intent to limit the application of section 61.1301(1)(a) to children or former spouses with children. However, the amendment of the definition of "support" in chapter 88, Florida *105 Statutes, which specifically addresses child support, does not alter the clear meaning of section 61.1301(1)(a), which addresses both child support and alimony upon the dissolution of marriage....

...ion by the maternal grandparents of his son. We reverse and remand with direction to apply section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1985). In January 1985, the maternal grandparents filed a supplemental petition for grandparent visitation rights pursuant to section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1984)....

...The first issue, namely whether the renumbering and relocation of the grandparental visitation act from chapter 61 to chapter 752 by the division of statutory revision divested appellant of his right to seek attorney's fees, is not contested by appellees. *706 Section 61.1301 which took effect on October 1, 1984, see chapter 84-64, Laws of Florida, creates visitation rights of grandparents and the remedy to seek same by petition. The statutory revision division renumbered section 61.1301, and, without making any changes in its wording, placed it in chapter 752....

...[1] Note — The words "to the grandparent with respect to the child" were inserted by the editors. [2] Note — The words "of the child" were inserted by the editors. [3] Note — The words "as provided in s. 752.07" were substituted by the editors for the words "pursuant to s. 61.1301(2)." Section 752.07 was enacted by s. 1, ch. 84-64 (C.S. for H.B. 487) and represents the compilation of s. 61.1301(3), as created by s. 1 of that act, which subsection was renumbered from s. 61.1301(2), as numbered in the unengrossed version of s. 1 of C.S. for H.B. 487, to s. 61.1301(3) as a result of Amendments 4 and 7 and Senate Amendment 1 to C.S....

...No appearance, for appellee. Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and COPE, JJ. COPE, Judge. Aurora Almodovar and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appeal an income deduction order insofar as the order provided for a delayed effective date pursuant to section 61.1301(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...deduction order, calling for a higher deduction than the previous order. However, the hearing officer ruled that good cause had been shown to make the new income deduction order "effective upon a delinquency in an amount equal to 1 month's support." § 61.1301(1)(c), Fla....

...of good faith have been made and some employers ... frown on and make it difficult for employees burdened with this order to remain employed." [1] The trial court entered an order *382 approving the report and recommendations of the hearing officer. Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1989) provides for the entry of income deduction orders in alimony and child support cases....

...Insofar as pertinent here, the statute provides that: "The income deduction order is effective immediately unless the court upon good cause shown finds that the income deduction order shall be effective upon a delinquency in an amount equal to 1 month's support." Id. § 61.1301(1)(c)....

...om an income deduction order is entered. Where discharge or other retaliation has occurred, the employer is subject to substantial civil penalties which are to be paid to the payee spouse or the enforcement agency, so long as any arrearage is owing. § 61.1301(2)(j), Fla....

...We reject without discussion the Former Husband's alternative argument that the trial court improperly granted the Former Wife the right to share in the Former Husband's separate property. However, the Former Husband also argues, and the Former Wife properly concedes, that section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (2002), does not permit the use of an income deduction order to effectuate an equitable distribution scheme. See Motil v. Motil, 771 So.2d 1251, 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Rather, section 61.1301 limits the use of income deduction orders to payments for alimony or child support....

...the remedies available in other similar statutorily created employment causes of action. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 747 F.Supp. 1446, 1448-49 (M.D.Fla.1990) (concluding punitive damages were not available under Fla. Stat. § 61.1301); Warner v....

...Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes....

...Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes....

...Therefore, we reverse and remand for recalculation of the total amount of the child support arrearages. We also direct the trial court to calculate the monthly payment which former husband is required to make to pay the arrearages at no less than 20% of his regular monthly support obligation. § 61.1301(l)(b)2, Florida Statutes (1993); see also Rivero v....

...On appeal, he attacks the income deduction order on the grounds that she no longer has any minor children living with her. [1] He misreads the statute. Income deduction orders are not limited by the statute to households with minor children. The applicable provision of section 61.1301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), reads: Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an alimony or a child support obligation, the court shall enter a separate order for income deduction if one has not been entered....

immediate income deduction order.1 We agree. Section 61.1301(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), provides as

...ntitled to any portion of the 65% of Knight’s disposable income due to 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (b)(2)(A)(1998). 1 We agree with the trial court’s conclusion, even though we remand for reallocation. We rely not only on the federal statute cited, but on section 61.1301(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), which provides how amounts available from an income deduction order should be allocated when there is more than one obligation outstanding....

...at each family is allocated a percentage of the remaining income available for deduction. The percentage *965 to be allocated to each family is determined by dividing each past due support obligation by the total of all past due support obligations. § 61.1301(4), Fla....

...ed, but also in failing to order withholding of an additional 20 percent for arrearages. The former husband does not contest the appropriateness of an income deduction order being entered as to the child support obligation in the modification order. Section 61.1301(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) states, “Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying ... a child support obligation, the court shall enter a separate order for income deduction if one has not been entered.” Section 61.1301(l)(b) provides in part: (b) The income deduction order shall: 1....

...We do not believe the legislature under the circumstances enumerated above intended to make income deduction orders optional. The legislature has, however, recognized that enforcement of an arrearage via an income deduction order should be left to the trial court’s discretion. Section 61.1301(3) provides: It is the intent of the Legislature that this section may be used to collect arrearages in child support payments which have accrued against an obligor. (Emphasis added). This legislative intent was added to section 61.1301 by Ch. 88-176, § 5, at 653, Laws of Fla., subsequent to the enactment of section 61.1301(l)(b)(2)....

...Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes....

...In an income deduction order, the trial court directed that $300 per month be deducted from Appellant's income until an arrearage of $24,308.59 is satisfied. A portion of this arrearage represents funds Appellant obtained from the pre-paid college accounts. Section 61.1301(1)(b)1 establishes the purposes for which an income deduction order may be used....

...It authorizes the use of an income deduction order to "[d]irect a payor to deduct from all income due and payable to an obligor the amount required by the court to meet the obligor's support obligation including any attorney's fees or costs owed and forward the deducted amount pursuant to the order." § 61.1301(1)(b)1....

...The record on appeal shows that during this appeal, appellee, the former husband, has been continuously and substantially in arrears in payment of alimony. Former Wife correctly contends that the entry of an IWO in this case is statutorily mandated. Section 61.1301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), states: Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for alimony, for child support, or for  alimony and child support, other than a temporary order, the court shall enter a separate order for income deduction if one has not been entered. § 61.1301(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021). Additionally, section 61.1301(1)(b)2. requires that the income deduction order shall: State the amount of arrearage owed, if any, and direct a payor to withhold an additional 20 percent or more of the periodic amount specified in the order estab...

...r modifying the obligation, until full payment is made of any arrearage, attorney’s fees and costs owed, provided no deduction shall be applied to attorney’s fees and costs until the full amount of any arrearage is paid. § 61.1301(1)(b)2., Fla....

...In her initial brief, Former Wife requested that we direct the trial court to comply with its statutory obligation. We therefore dismiss as moot the portion of the appeal seeking to reverse the May 12, 2021 IWO, and remand the case for the trial court to enter an IWO that fulfills the requirements of section 61.1301. Dismissed in part and remanded for further proceedings. GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing....

whether Thoro-Clean had an obligation under section 61.1301(l)(b)l, Florida Statutes, to deduct *129from

...entry of an income deduction order requiring withholdings from his income of an amount equal to ten percent of his monthly periodic alimony obligation until the alimony arrearage is satisfied. The former wife, Lori Timmons, asserts on appeal that section 61.1301(1)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2014), requires that the arrearage be satisfied through monthly income deductions of twenty percent....

...The trial court further required the former husband to pay the balance of the arrearage—$5400 at the time of the contempt order—not satisfied by the purge payment. With respect to the rate of payment of the arrearage, the former wife argued that section 61.1301(1)(b)(2), which makes provision for income deduction -2- orders to assure payment of alimony obligations, required monthly payments of twenty percent of the former husband's regular monthly alimony obligation until the arrearage was satisfied....

...e sum of $103.85 be deducted from income payable to the former husband on a biweekly basis until the arrearage is satisfied.1 The former wife moved for rehearing, again challenging the ten-percent withholdings amount as less than that required by section 61.1301(1)(b)(2), which the trial court denied. This appeal followed. On appeal, the former wife asserts that the trial court misinterpreted section 61.1301(1)(b)(2) as providing discretion to order withholdings for the alimony arrearage in an amount less than twenty percent....

...The former wife has not provided a transcript of the proceedings below, which ordinarily could preclude our review in a case like this. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1980). The trial court's reasoning about section 61.1301(1)(b)(2) appears on the face of the contempt order, however, and the absence of a transcript thus presents no impediment in this case. See Coyne v. Coyne, 895 So. 2d 469, 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining that, notwithstanding an appellant's failure to provide a transcript, an appellate court may reach errors that appear on the face of a trial court's order). Section 61.1301(1)(a) provides that "[u]pon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for alimony [or] child support . . . the court shall enter a separate order for income deduction if one has not been entered." Section 61.1301(1)(b)(2) governs the content of such orders....

...It says, among other things, that an income deduction order "shall . . . [s]tate the amount of the arrearage owed . . . and direct a payor to withhold an additional 20 percent or more of the periodic amount specified in the order . . . enforcing the obligation, until full payment is made of any arrearage." § 61.1301(1)(b)(2) (emphasis added). By its plain terms, section 61.1301(1)(b)(2) does not authorize discretionary decisions to direct income deduction in an amount less than twenty percent of the periodic amount specified in the order....

...at least 20% of the specified support amount"); see also Taylor v. Lasley, 666 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (directing calculation of child support arrearage payment "at no less than 20%" of the ongoing obligation). Because section 61.1301(1)(b)(2)'s twenty-percent requirement by its terms applies only to income deduction orders, it does not extend to other funds—cash held by a spouse in a bank account prior to entry of an income deduction order, for example—that are not subject to such orders....

...ecision. -5- ability to pay"). In the instant case, however, income from the former husband's employment is the intended source of funds from which the arrearage is to be paid. That income is subject to section 61.1301(1)(b)(2)'s twenty-percent requirement, and that requirement must be enforced here. Because the trial court deviated from that requirement, we reverse the contempt order to the extent it provides for entry of an income deduction order that varies from the requirements of section 61.1301(1)(b)(2) and reverse the income deduction order to the extent it actually does so....

...tion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

...ion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

...NOTE: The Obligor’s Social Security Number should be placed on the copy of the Notice to Payor that is mailed to the Obligor’s Payor. This line should be left blank on the original Notice to Payor filed with the court. YOU, THE PAYOR, ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, under section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, you have the responsibilities and rights set forth below with regard to the accompanying Income Deduction Order and/or any attachment(s): 1....

...tion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

...tion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

...ion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

...NOTE: The Obligor’s Social Security Number should be placed on the copy of the Notice to Payor that is mailed to the Obligor’s Payor. This line should be left blank on the original Notice to Payor filed with the court. YOU, THE PAYOR, ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, under section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, you have the responsibilities and rights set forth below with regard to the accompanying Income Deduction Order and/or any attachment(s): 1....

...tion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

1980), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1981). . § 61.1301, Fla.Stat. (1991). . She testified her efforts

...llant. It merely instructs appellant’s employer to withhold child support to fulfill appellant’s obligation as imposed by the final administrative support order.. The information that must be included in an income deduction order is set forth in section 61.1301(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2015), but that section does not require a finding of ability to pay....

...Disbursement Unit by way of [an] Income Deduction Order.”5 Although she never obtained a ruling on those motions, she again requested such relief in her trial memorandum and raised the issue once more in her motion for rehearing. The final judgment is silent on the issue. Section 61.1301 governs income deduction orders and provides, in relevant part: (1) Issuance in conjunction with an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for alimony or child support.--...

...12  child support, or for alimony and child support, other than a temporary order, the court shall enter a separate order for income deduction if one has not been entered. § 61.1301(1)(a), Fla....

PER CURIAM. We reverse, in part, a final order to the extent that it includes an income deduction order. In all other respects, we affirm. Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, does not allow income deduction orders to be used solely for the payment of attorney’s fees....

...ion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

...NOTE: The Obligor’s Social Security Number should be placed on the copy of the Notice to Payor that is mailed to the Obligor’s Payor. This line should be left blank on the original Notice to Payor filed with the court. YOU, THE PAYOR, ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, under section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, you have the responsibilities and rights set forth below with regard to the accompanying Income Deduction Order and/or any attachment(s): 1....

...tion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

arrearages the appellee was ordered to pay. See § 61.1301(l)(b)2, Fla.Stat. (1995); Puglia v. Puglia, 600

...As for the income deduction order, it purports to take $4,930 out of the husband’s net pay of $3,262 from his new employer, which — apart from the mathematical problem — violates both the federal and state statutes on wage garnishments and income deduction orders. 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (b); § 61.1301(l)(b), Fla....

...We affirm the trial court’s custody determination and reverse for correction of judgment in regard to the names of the two children and the omissions on the visitation schedule. We further direct the trial court to file an income deduction order against the mother pursuant to section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...ents were received. The Committee filed a response to the comments. The three new forms are meant to enable an individual to implement an income deduction order to obtain court-ordered child support, alimony, and attorney fees. Despite the fact that section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (2009), requires income deduction, no court-approved forms currently exist to fill this need....

...as a court-approved form, thereby minimizing delay in processing the required deductions. Upon consideration of the Committee’s proposals, the comments, and the Committee’s responses thereto, we adopt these new forms with one minor modification. Section 61.1301 requires that when the State Disbursement Unit becomes operational, the income deduction order must direct that all payments be made to the State Disbursement Unit....

...Thus, the proposed income deduction order directs the payor to “pay the deducted amount to the ‘State of Florida Disbursement Unit.’ “ However, the proposed notice to payor form instructs the payor to pay the deducted amount “to the obligee or to the depository.” This mirrors the current language of section 61.1301(2)(e)(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (2009), but could be confusing to the payor....

...Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes....

...Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions *233 are defined there. See Florida Statute section 61.1301....

...Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information, see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes....

...In this complaint, Appellant sought custody of both minor children and sought declaratory relief to determine paternity of the minor child Simone. The supplemental complaint also sought relief to determine proper jurisdiction for purposes of determining custody, pursuant to the UC-CJA period. § 61.1301....

...trial court made three errors. First, the court erred in misstating the number of overnights with the child that each party was allowed, which affects the child support calculation. Second, the court failed to include an income deduction order as mandated by section 61.1301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2020)....

...income deduction order, along with the arrears required in the final judgment. Instead, the court ordered that child support be paid “directly to the wife.” We agree that the court was required to issue an income deduction order for the child support. Section 61.1301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2020) states, “Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for ....

SUAREZ, J. Affirmed. See § 61.1301(b)(2), Fla....

...Ernesto LOPEZ, Appellee. No. 3D09-2198. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. June 30, 2010. Armando Montalvo; Margaret Brodsky, Miami, for appellant. Steven N. Abramowitz, for appellee. Before SUAREZ, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ. SUAREZ, J. Affirmed. See § 61.1301(b)(2), Fla....

...The third, and last, order on appeal is the Amended Order Granting Father's Motions for Contempt. This order is similar to the previous Order of Contempt, except that it requires that additional payments be made to the Guardian Ad Litem. We first address whether section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (2010), was the appropriate vehicle for the collection of attorney's fees incurred by the father in this case. Section 61.1301(1)(a), states in relevant part that "[u]pon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for alimony, for child support, or for alimony and child support, other than a temporary order, the court shall ente...

...[d]irect a payor to deduct from all income due and payable to an obligor the amount required by the court to meet the obligor's *985 support obligation including any attorney's fees or costs owed and forward the deducted amount pursuant to the order." Because section 61.1301 is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. See Spalding v. Spalding, 813 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We interpret section 61.1301(1)(a) as authorizing an income deduction order to collect attorney's fees incurred as a result of securing and collecting child support and/or alimony....

...For example, some of the fees in question were incurred as the result of the parties' custody dispute. The father argues that because "some portion" of the fees were related to the securing or collecting of child support, the income deduction order was appropriate. We do not believe that section 61.1301(1)(a) can be so liberally construed....

...Statutes is a general act creating a Municipal Firemen’s Pension Trust Fund in each municipality of the state without such a fund and establishing guidelines for municipalities having the fund. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides for the entry of income deduction orders once an obligation to pay alimony or child support has been established, was enacted subsequently to section 175.241 and therefore the conflicting provisions in section 61.1301 should prevail. The trial court found that the retirement benefits and pension funds were subject to garnishment under section 61.1301 since they are included in the definition of “income” under section 61.046(4). The appellant timely filed this challenge to the trial court’s order. As a matter of public policy, we agree with the trial court that section 61.1301 should generally apply to a disability or retirement pension when a valid support order has been entered by a court in a dissolution of marriage or child custody proceeding....

...2d DCA 1986), review denied, 504 So.2d 767 (Fla.1987). Although a special act may be repealed by a subsequent general act in some circumstances, legislative intent to repeal the original act must be clearly shown. Jackson v. Consol. Gov’t, *1112 225 So.2d 497 (Fla.1969). Section 61.1301, which was enacted in 1986, does not address the exemption from garnishment of retirement or disability proceeds under the firemen’s and policemen’s funds or otherwise demonstrate legislative intent to repeal the special act. Further, section 61.1301 conflicts with section 175.241, both of which are general acts of the legislature....

...We must therefore hold that the pension benefits are exempt and the trial court erred in denying the motion to dissolve the income deduction order. However, because of the importance of the public policy issue involved herein, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court. DOES SECTION 61.1301, WHICH MANDATES THE ENTRY OF INCOME DEDUCTION ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT PURSUANT TO A TRIAL COURT ORDER, IMPLICITLY REPEAL THE PROVISIONS OF A SPECIAL ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE PROHIBITING SUCH GARNISHMENT OF PENSION BENEFITS FOR DEBT OR...

...ut into effect again unless the obligor became delinquent by one month. Id. The second district held that written findings of good cause were needed in order to change a standing income deduction order into a delayed income deduction order. Id.; see § 61.1301(l)(c), Fla....

...d expenses. The general master recommended that the parties split the cost of repairs and improvements on the home. The general master also recommended that Barry pay an outstanding medical bill, that an income deduction order be entered pursuant to section 61.1301, Florida Statutes *26 (1987), for $300 monthly child support, and that Barry be required to pay Rita’s attorney’s fees and costs....

...Thus, the trial court determined the amount of arrearage but did not enter an income deduction order for repayment. This was error. The legislature has directed that courts enter income deduction orders whenever an order establishing or modifying alimony or child support is entered. See § 61.1301, Fla. Stat. (1995). Section 61.1301(l)(a) states, in pertinent part that, “[ujpon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for alimony, for child support, or for alimony and child support, the court shall enter a separate order for inc...

...Where can I look for more information? Before proceeding, you should read "General Information for Self-Represented Litigants" found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in "bold underline" in these instructions *862 are defined there. For further information see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes....

...Because we are reversing on this basis, we need not reach the former husband’s argument that the requirement that the $188,000 be paid from the entirety of his salary violates 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b) but we remind the trial court that income deduction orders must comply with section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (2021)....

...In a separate order dated August 20,1985, the trial court ordered Southeast Bank to pay the ex-wife’s legal fees in the amount of $1,000.00. Appellant contends that section 61.-1301, Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), does not authorize a trial court to order disbursements from a discretionary trust. We agree. Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1984), states the following: In addition and together with any such child support order or modification thereof pursuant to Section 61.13(l)(c), the court shall issue an income deduction order which directs the empl...

...be made or which were actually made from the trust and that *739 disbursements wholly within the discretion of the trustee would be excluded until such disbursements were actually made, at which point, they would be subject to a writ of garnishment. Section 61.1301 was enacted by the 1984 Legislature (Chapter 84-110) and became effective on January 1, 1985. The Florida Supreme Court released its Bacardi opinion on January 31, 1985 which was after the effective date of the statute. When the Legislature enacted section 61.1301, two intermediate appellate court decisions had been released on the issue of whether spendthrift trusts were subject to garnishment for payment of court-ordered alimony. White v. Bacardi, 446 So.2d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) and Gilbert v. Gilbert, 447 So.2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). These two decisions were in direct and explicit conflict. In drafting section 61.1301, the Legislature included “trust accounts” in its enumeration of sources of income which would be subject to income deduction orders....

...s which were not due and payable. Had the Legislature intended to limit or qualify the effectiveness of spendthrift trusts, it is reasonable to assume it would have specifically addressed the issue. To reiterate, neither Bacardi v. White, supra, nor section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.) authorizes the circuit court to issue an income deduction order to compel the exercise of discretion by the trustee of a discretionary spendthrift trust. First, we have noted that Bacardi controls the issuance of income deduction orders against spendthrift trusts. However, had the trust instrument herein not included a spendthrift clause, then section 61.1301 would still have prohibited the order from being issued because of the discretionary nature of the trust....

...edure 7052. . The lump sum alimony does not terminate upon the former wife’s re-marriage or death. . The debtor argues that under Florida law only support obligations are to be payable by income deduction through the state disbursement agency. See § 61.1301, Fla....

...We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that the loss of income incurred by the father constituted a substantial change in circumstances which justified an adjustment of child support. Andrews v. Andrews, 448 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, provides for the entry of income deduction orders in cases involving modification of child support....

...In pertinent part, the statute provides, “The income deduction order is effective immediately unless the court upon good cause shown finds that the income deduction order shall be effective upon a delinquency in an amount equal to 1 month’s support.” § 61.1301(l)(c) (1989)....

entry of an income deduction order pursuant to section 61.1301(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). We affirm the

...tion? Before proceeding, you should read “General Information for Self-Represented Litigants” found at the beginning of these forms. The words that are in “bold underline” in these instructions are defined there. For further information see section 61.1301, Florida Statutes. IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING E-FILING The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration now require that all petitions, pleadings, and documents be filed electronically except in certain circumstances....

...Finding Industrial had “willfully failed to comply” with the underlying order, the court on January 23,1987 ordered the company to pay $350.00 to the wife’s attorney. Industrial contends first that the court erred in failing to follow the procedures set out in section 61.1301; thus, the order finding the company in contempt was void....

...ly entered against Philip Jenness, Jr. by substituting a delayed income deduction order for the original order. We reverse because the trial court lacked the authority to enter a delayed income deduction order without making the findings required by section 61.1301(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...income deduction order for the original order. No transcripts are available for any of these proceedings. Davis filed her notice of appeal on June 20, 1996, from the April 17, 1996, and June 10, 1996, orders. Income deduction orders are governed by section 61.1301, which requires that, upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an obligation for child support, a separate order for income deduction shall also be entered. Section 61.1301 further requires that the deduction order shall be effective immediately unless the court upon good cause shown finds that the order shall be effective upon a delinquency in an amount equal to one month’s payment. Davis cites to sections 61.1301(l)(a) and (c) 1 and argues that the trial court did not have discretion to remove the income deduction order and that the good cause requirements for entering a delayed deduction order were not met. Jenness argues that subsections (a) and (c) do not apply because the trial court was being asked to terminate an existing income deduction order and not to enter an initial income deduction order. Instead, Jenness directs our attention to section 61.1301(l)(d) as the source of a trial court’s discretionary authority to terminate an income deduction order....

...Subsection (d) merely states the general rule that an income deduction order shall coexist with its underlying support order and recognizes that further orders of the court may be entered. However, any “further order of the court” must be entered in compliance with all applicable provisions of section 61.1301 and in a manner that carries out the intent of the legislation. The trial court failed to make any written findings of good cause as required by section 61.1301(l)(c). We conclude that those findings are required when the trial court modifies an existing order to create a delayed income deduction order just as they are required when the trial court initially enters a delayed order. The legislative mandate in section 61.1301 is clearly that either an immediate or a delayed income deduction order shall be entered in all cases in which an order of support is entered. In Almodovar v. Gonzalez, *879 573 So.2d 380, 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Third District reviewed the history of section 61.1301 and observed that “the Governor’s Commission on Child Support recommended that Florida exceed federal requirements by making income deduction orders immediately effective in all cases.” However, the Florida legislature “adopted the recommendation in modified form, by providing that immediate withholding would be the general rule, but a delayed income deduction order would be permissible for good cause shown.” Id. Our interpretation of section 61.1301 is consistent with this mandate. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur. .Section 61.1301(l)(a) and (c) provide, in pertinent part: (1) ISSUANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ORDER ESTABLISHING, ENFORCING, OR MODIFYING AN OBLIGATION FOR ALIMONY OR CHILD SUPPORT.- (a) Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing, or modifyin...

...A hearing shall be set as soon as funds are so deposited to determine the distribution thereof between the parties and the minor child for child support. After entry of the final judgment, the trial court issued the income deduction order pursuant to section 61.1301(1), Florida Statutes (1993), which provides in part: (1) ISSUANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ORDER ESTABLISHING, ENFORCING, OR MODIFYING AN OBLIGATION FOR ALIMONY OR CHILD SUPPORT.— (a) Upon the entry of an order establishing, enforcing...

...Before bringing this appeal, the trial court denied the former husband’s motion to vacate the income deduction order. We reverse. Income deduction orders under section 61.1801, Florida Statutes, cannot be used solely for the payment of attorney’s fees. Nash v. Nash, 688 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Section 61.1301(1)(a) authorizes income deduction orders for alimony and/or child support and, as the provision is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. *1080 See id.; see also Coleman v. Coleman, 629 So.2d 103, 104 (Fla.1993). Although the former wife’s attorney’s fees arose out of the underlying final judgment of dissolution awarding support, section 61.1301(l)(a) cannot be so liberally construed as to give it a meaning which disregards the clear and unambiguous language of the statute....

...Silversmith, 797 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We are not concerned, here, with any right that a party may have to an income deduction order for attorney’s fees incurred in securing payment of support or alimony, as specifically authorized in section 61.1301(l)(a), Florida Statutes....

...pport payments have priority, and (b) that the husband has funds remaining on which to live. See Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Ernst, 453 So.2d 99, 102-03 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). See generally Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); § 61.1301, Fla.Stat....

...Moore does not contend was improper, see 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (b)(2)(B) (2018)-but it fails to explain how much of that monthly deduction and in what priority the amount deducted is to apply to each current obligation and each arrearage (alimony, child support, or attorney's fees). Section 61.1301(1), Florida Statutes (2018), sets forth items that a trial court imposing an income deduction order must specify, including that arrearage amounts are to be deducted at twenty percent or more of the periodic amount set forth in the order establishing the obligation....

...Moore to know from the face of the income deduction order whether or how the deduction is applying to each arrearage and each original current obligation. And the income deduction order is likewise insufficient to provide any future payor or court tasked with the enforcement of the order under section 61.1301(2) with the requisite information to apply the deduction amount to the arrearages and the current obligations in a way that consistently adheres to section 61.1301....

...Moore will be unable to determine how much each obligation (current and arrearage) is affected when income is deducted or when his obligation to pay the arrearages has expired. See generally Dep't of Revenue v. Knight , 765 So.2d 963 , 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (relying "on section 61.1301(4), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...Moore does not contend was improper, see 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (b)(2)(B) (2018)-but it fails to explain how much of that monthly deduction and in what priority the amount deducted is to apply to each current obligation and each arrearage (alimony, child support, or attorney's fees). Section 61.1301(1), Florida Statutes (2018), sets forth items that a trial court imposing an income deduction order must specify, including that arrearage amounts are to be deducted at twenty percent or more of the periodic amount set forth in the order establishing the obligation....

...Moore to know from the face of the income deduction order whether or how the deduction is applying to each arrearage and each original current obligation. And the income deduction order is likewise insufficient to provide any future payor or court tasked with the enforcement of the order under section 61.1301(2) with the requisite information to apply the deduction amount to the arrearages and the current obligations in a way that consistently adheres to section 61.1301....

...Moore will be unable to determine how much each obligation (current and arrearage) is affected when income is deducted or when his obligation to pay the arrearages has expired. See generally Dep't of Revenue v. Knight , 765 So.2d 963 , 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (relying "on section 61.1301(4), Florida Statutes (Supp....

child support, or attorney's fees). Section 61.1301(1), Florida Statutes (2018), sets forth items