How to Dissolve a Writ of Garnishment in Florida

A judgment debtor whose bank account or wages have been frozen by a writ of garnishment has several legal mechanisms to challenge and dissolve the writ. Florida Statute § 77.07 provides the framework for dissolution, and the garnishment statute as a whole imposes procedural requirements so detailed that creditor errors are common. A debtor who acts quickly and identifies the right ground for dissolution can recover frozen funds and force the creditor to start the process over.

Dissolution is not a one-size-fits-all remedy. The debtor may challenge the writ because the garnished funds are exempt, because the creditor’s factual allegations are untrue, because the creditor failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements, or because the writ has expired. Each ground involves different procedures, different deadlines, and different burdens of proof.

Claim of Exemption: The Most Common Defense

The most frequently used dissolution mechanism is the Claim of Exemption under § 77.041. When a garnishment writ is served, the debtor receives a notice that identifies the major categories of exempt property and includes a Claim of Exemption form. The debtor completes the form, has it notarized, and files it with the court, then serves a copy on the creditor and the garnishee.

Common exemptions include head of household wages under § 222.11, Social Security and other federal benefits protected under 42 U.S.C. § 407 and 31 CFR Part 212, retirement account funds exempt under § 222.21, disability benefits, veterans’ benefits, and tenants by entireties bank accounts protected from individual creditors of one spouse.

After the debtor files the Claim of Exemption, the creditor must respond within a tight deadline. If the debtor hand-delivered the claim to the creditor, the creditor has 3 business days to file a sworn written statement contesting it. If the claim was served by mail, the creditor has 8 business days to object. If the creditor fails to file an objection within the applicable period, no hearing is required. The clerk of court must automatically dissolve the writ and notify all parties of the dissolution by mail.

This automatic dissolution provision is one of the most powerful tools available to debtors. A creditor who misses the objection deadline loses the garnishment regardless of whether the exemption claim has merit. The statute does not give the court discretion to excuse a late objection.

If the creditor does file a timely objection, the court schedules a hearing as soon as practicable. At the hearing, the debtor must present evidence supporting the claimed exemption. For a head of household claim, this typically means tax returns showing dependent children, pay stubs, and bank statements tracing the source of deposits. For a tenants by entireties claim, the debtor presents the account signature card and marriage certificate. The court then rules on whether the funds are exempt and either dissolves the writ or enters a final judgment of garnishment.

Motion to Dissolve Under § 77.07(1)

Section 77.07(1) provides a broader dissolution remedy. The debtor may file a motion challenging the grounds upon which the writ was issued. The court must set down the motion for an immediate hearing. If the creditor cannot prove the grounds stated in its motion for the writ, the garnishment is dissolved and the case proceeds as if no writ had been issued.

For a post-judgment writ, the creditor’s motion must allege that the judgment is just, due, and unpaid, and that the debtor will not have sufficient property in the state on which a levy can be made to satisfy the claim. If any of these allegations are untrue, the debtor can move for dissolution. For a prejudgment writ, the creditor must additionally show a reasonable probability of prevailing in the underlying action.

This provision is distinct from the Claim of Exemption. A debtor who files a motion under § 77.07(1) is not asserting that the garnished funds are exempt. The debtor is challenging the factual basis for the writ itself. For example, if the judgment has already been satisfied, if the debtor does have sufficient leviable property in the county, or if the creditor’s motion contains material misrepresentations, the debtor can seek dissolution on these grounds.

The 20-Day Deadline and Default

Section 77.07(2) imposes a critical deadline on the debtor’s right to challenge the writ. After the creditor serves the debtor with the garnishee’s answer and the required notice under § 77.055, the debtor has 20 days to file and serve a motion to dissolve stating that any allegation in the creditor’s motion is untrue.

The consequence of missing this deadline is severe. The statute provides that an untimely motion to dissolve shall be stricken by the court as an “unauthorized nullity,” and the proceedings move into a default posture as to that party. In default posture, the debtor can no longer contest the creditor’s factual allegations, and the court can enter a final judgment of garnishment based on the creditor’s motion and the garnishee’s answer alone.

This 20-day window applies specifically to challenges based on untrue allegations in the creditor’s motion. It does not necessarily bar a debtor from filing a separate Claim of Exemption, which operates under its own procedural track. However, debtors should not rely on this distinction without legal advice, because courts may view the failure to act within 20 days as a waiver of all defenses.

Procedural Defects as Grounds for Dissolution

Florida courts have consistently held that Chapter 77 garnishment procedures must be strictly construed. The creditor must comply with every procedural requirement, and even technical violations can result in dissolution of the writ.

Common procedural defects that support dissolution include failure to serve the debtor with the required notice and Claim of Exemption form within the statutory timeframe, failure to serve the garnishee’s answer on the debtor within five days under § 77.055, failure to include the required bond amount for a prejudgment garnishment, errors in the verified motion or affidavit filed with the court, and failure to properly identify the garnishee or the debtor in the writ.

The creditor’s motion for a writ of garnishment must be a verified motion containing specific factual allegations. If the motion omits a required element or contains an allegation that is demonstrably false, the debtor can move for dissolution. Courts have dissolved writs where the creditor’s verified motion failed to allege that the debtor lacked sufficient leviable property, where the motion was not properly verified, or where the creditor served the garnishment documents out of order.

Service defects are particularly common. The creditor must serve specific documents on specific parties within specific timeframes, and any failure in this chain of service creates a ground for dissolution. A debtor represented by an experienced attorney will scrutinize every step of the creditor’s garnishment prosecution for procedural errors.

Automatic Dissolution at Six Months

Under § 77.07(5), a writ of garnishment automatically dissolves if the creditor fails to file a dismissal or motion for final judgment within six months after filing the writ. The creditor can extend this period to twelve months by properly serving a notice of extension on both the garnishee and the debtor, but the maximum duration of a bank garnishment cannot exceed twelve months. The garnishment time limits article addresses this topic in detail.

What Happens After Dissolution

When a writ of garnishment is dissolved, the statute provides that the case proceeds “as if no writ had been issued.” The garnishee is discharged from further liability under the writ and must release any frozen funds back to the account holder. The bank or employer that was holding funds is no longer obligated to withhold anything.

Dissolution of the writ does not eliminate the underlying judgment. The creditor still holds a valid judgment and can pursue other collection methods, including issuing a new writ of garnishment. A debtor who obtains dissolution based on a procedural defect should expect the creditor to correct the error and try again. A debtor who obtains dissolution based on a successful exemption claim is in a stronger position, because the same exemption will apply to future garnishment attempts against the same funds.

Wrongful Garnishment Claims

A debtor whose exempt funds were garnished may have a separate cause of action against the creditor for wrongful garnishment. Florida common law recognizes the tort of wrongful garnishment when a creditor acts maliciously in garnishing property that the creditor knew or should have known was exempt. The leading case establishing this principle is Strickland v. Commerce Loan Company, where the court held that lack of probable cause to garnish an account implies malice.

A wrongful garnishment claim must be brought as a separate lawsuit, not as a counterclaim in the garnishment proceeding. The claim is available after the writ has been dissolved, and the debtor must show that the creditor lacked probable cause to believe the garnished funds were subject to collection. The facts supporting a wrongful garnishment claim may also support recovery under an abuse of process theory.

As a practical matter, most wrongful garnishment claims arise when a creditor garnishes a clearly exempt account, such as an entireties account where the judgment is against only one spouse, or an account that holds only Social Security deposits. If the creditor knew the account was exempt and proceeded with the garnishment anyway to pressure a settlement, the debtor may have a viable claim.

Practical Steps When Your Account Is Frozen

The first step when a debtor discovers that a bank account has been frozen is to obtain copies of all garnishment documents from the court file. These documents include the creditor’s motion, the writ itself, the garnishee’s answer, and any notices served on the debtor. Reviewing these documents reveals whether the creditor has followed all procedural requirements and whether any grounds for dissolution exist.

If the frozen funds are exempt, the debtor should file the Claim of Exemption immediately. Time is critical because the creditor’s short objection deadline does not begin running until the claim is filed. The sooner the debtor files, the sooner the clock starts on the creditor’s obligation to object or lose the garnishment.

If the debtor identifies a procedural defect, the debtor or the debtor’s attorney should file a motion to dissolve the writ under § 77.07. The motion should specifically identify which statutory requirement the creditor failed to satisfy and cite the applicable provision of Chapter 77. The court must schedule an immediate hearing on the motion.

Before filing anything with the court, the debtor’s attorney may contact the creditor’s attorney directly with evidence of the exemption or procedural defect. If the evidence is clear, many creditor attorneys will voluntarily dismiss the garnishment rather than litigate a losing position. This approach can result in the fastest release of frozen funds.