Alimony and Garnishment in Florida

Florida courts have consistently held that a third-party creditor cannot garnish alimony payments received by a judgment debtor. The protection does not come from a specific statute—Chapter 222 does not list alimony among exempt income categories—but from judicial decisions grounded in public policy.

The word “garnishment” appears in two very different alimony contexts, and confusing them leads to serious mistakes. A creditor holding a money judgment against someone who receives alimony cannot intercept those payments. But a former spouse owed unpaid alimony can use garnishment to collect, and the limits are far more aggressive than ordinary consumer debt garnishment.

Can a Third-Party Creditor Garnish Alimony Payments?

Florida law does not include an explicit statutory exemption for alimony received by a debtor. Chapter 222 lists head of household wages, homestead property, retirement benefits, and certain other assets as exempt from creditor claims. Alimony is not on that list. A strict statutory reading would suggest that alimony payments are fair game for any creditor holding a money judgment.

Florida courts have rejected that reading. Both state courts and federal bankruptcy courts in Florida have ruled that allowing creditors to seize alimony payments would undermine the purpose of the alimony award itself. One basis for this protection is that garnishment requires a debtor-creditor relationship between the garnishee and the judgment debtor. Florida courts have held that alimony is not a “debt” in the traditional sense. It is a court-ordered support obligation, not a commercial obligation arising from a transaction.

The broader rationale follows the same logic behind much of Florida’s exemption system. The wage exemption under § 222.11 exists not primarily to benefit the debtor but to protect the debtor’s dependents from losing their support. Courts have extended this reasoning to alimony by recognizing that the recipient is, in a practical sense, a dependent of the former spouse who pays it. Intercepting those payments would leave the alimony recipient without financial support that a court already determined was necessary.

Head of Household Protection for Alimony Recipients

An alimony recipient who qualifies as head of household may have an independent statutory basis for exempting income from garnishment, separate from the public policy protection. Section 222.11 exempts compensation paid for personal services—wages, salary, commission, or bonus. Alimony does not fit neatly into this definition because it is not compensation for personal services.

The more relevant question is whether the alimony recipient provides more than half of the financial support for a child or other dependent. A custodial parent using alimony and other income to support minor children can claim head of household status. The alimony itself may not qualify as “earnings” under the statute, but the recipient’s overall financial situation as a head of household strengthens the argument that creditors should not reach the funds supporting that household.

Courts evaluating whether a creditor can garnish an alimony recipient’s income often consider the recipient’s entire financial picture. A recipient who depends primarily on alimony to support themselves and their children presents a stronger case for protection than a recipient with substantial independent income who receives alimony as a supplement.

What Happens After Alimony Is Deposited in a Bank Account?

Alimony protection becomes more complicated once payments land in a bank account. A creditor who cannot garnish alimony directly from the payor may attempt to garnish the recipient’s bank account after the alimony has been deposited.

The six-month tracing protection under § 222.11(3) applies to “earnings that are exempt under subsection (2)” that are deposited in a financial institution. Because alimony is not technically “earnings” within the statutory definition, this six-month bank account protection may not apply to deposited alimony the same way it applies to deposited wages. The public policy protection that courts have recognized for alimony does not have an explicit statutory duration for funds held in a bank account.

The safest approach is to maintain a segregated account that receives only alimony deposits. If a creditor serves a writ of garnishment on the bank, the recipient can assert the public policy exemption and show through bank records that every dollar came from alimony.

Commingling alimony with non-exempt funds makes this much harder. If the account contains a mix of alimony, wages, and other income sources, the recipient must trace each deposit to its source. Courts may refuse to protect the entire account balance when the debtor cannot distinguish exempt from non-exempt funds.

Garnishment to Enforce Unpaid Alimony

Florida law allows a former spouse owed alimony to use garnishment as a collection tool against the payor. Under § 61.12, the recipient can obtain a writ of garnishment against the payor’s employer, bank accounts, or other third parties who hold the payor’s assets. Section 61.1301 also requires the court to enter an income withholding order upon entry of any order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an alimony obligation. The order directs the payor’s employer to withhold the alimony amount from each paycheck and send it to the appropriate depository.

Garnishment limits for alimony enforcement are far higher than the limits for ordinary consumer debts. Under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, a creditor enforcing a support order can garnish up to 50% of the payor’s disposable earnings if the payor is currently supporting another spouse or dependent child. If the payor is not supporting another spouse or child, the limit increases to 60%.

An additional 5% applies if the alimony arrears are more than 12 weeks past due, bringing the maximum to 55% or 65% depending on the payor’s other support obligations. These limits dwarf the 25% cap that applies to ordinary judgment creditors.

The head of household exemption under § 222.11 does not apply to alimony enforcement. A payor who qualifies as head of household can block wage garnishment by a credit card company but cannot use the same exemption to avoid paying court-ordered alimony.

Alimony Obligations Survive Bankruptcy

Alimony arrears cannot be eliminated through bankruptcy. Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), debts for domestic support obligations—including alimony, maintenance, and support—are nondischargeable in both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 proceedings. The automatic stay in bankruptcy may temporarily halt garnishment, but the alimony obligation survives the case and the recipient can resume collection after the stay lifts.

A payor who files Chapter 13 can include alimony arrears in the repayment plan, but the arrears must be paid in full over the life of the plan. Falling behind on alimony while the bankruptcy case is pending is grounds for dismissal.

Other Enforcement Tools Beyond Garnishment

Florida courts have additional remedies for enforcing alimony obligations beyond garnishment. Under § 61.11, the court can issue injunctions and writs to secure alimony payments. A payor who willfully refuses to pay can be held in civil contempt under Florida Family Law Rule 12.615. Civil contempt can result in incarceration until the payor complies with the court order or demonstrates a genuine inability to pay.

The court can also require the payor to secure the alimony obligation with assets, post a bond, or purchase life insurance naming the recipient as beneficiary. Under § 61.08(4), the court has discretion to order these security measures when special circumstances warrant them.

Unlike child support enforcement, the Florida Department of Revenue does not assist with alimony collection. Recipients who need to enforce an alimony obligation must pursue enforcement privately through the family court—bearing the cost of filing enforcement motions, serving process, and attending hearings. Section 61.16 does allow the court to order the payor to cover the recipient’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for enforcement proceedings.