Alimony and Garnishment in Florida

The word “alimony” and “garnishment” appear together in two very different contexts, and confusing them can lead to serious mistakes. The first question is whether a third-party creditor—a credit card company, a medical provider, or any judgment holder—can garnish alimony payments that a debtor receives from a former spouse.

The second question is whether garnishment can be used to enforce an alimony obligation against the person who owes it. Florida law treats these situations differently, and the protections available depend entirely on which side of the alimony equation the debtor occupies.

Can a Creditor Garnish Alimony You Receive?

Florida’s statutes do not include an explicit exemption for alimony payments received by a debtor. Chapter 222 of the Florida Statutes lists specific categories of property and income that are exempt from creditor claims, including head of household wages, homestead property, retirement benefits, and certain other assets. Alimony is not on that list. By strict statutory reading, alimony payments received by a judgment debtor would appear to be fair game for a creditor holding a money judgment.

Despite this statutory gap, Florida courts have consistently held that alimony cannot be garnished by a third-party creditor. The protection comes not from a specific statute but from judicial decisions grounded in public policy. 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, which is to provide financial support to a dependent former spouse who needs it.

The reasoning follows the same logic that underlies much of Florida’s exemption framework. The wage exemption under § 222.11 exists not primarily to benefit the debtor but to protect the debtor’s dependents from being left without support. Courts have extended this rationale to alimony by recognizing that the recipient of alimony is, in a practical sense, a dependent of the former spouse who pays it. Allowing a third-party creditor to intercept those payments would leave the alimony recipient without the financial support that a court already determined was necessary.

The Head of Household Overlap

Even apart from the public policy protection, an alimony recipient who qualifies as head of household may have an independent statutory basis for exempting alimony from garnishment. Section 222.11 exempts “compensation paid or payable, in money of a sum certain, for personal services or labor whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, or bonus.” Alimony does not fit neatly into this definition because it is not compensation for personal services.

However, the broader question is whether the alimony recipient provides more than half of the financial support for a child or other dependent. If the recipient is a custodial parent using alimony and other income to support minor children, the head of household exemption may protect the recipient’s earnings from garnishment. 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 be able to reach the funds that support the household.

In practice, 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 who has substantial independent income and receives alimony as a supplement.

Alimony Deposited in a Bank Account

Once alimony payments are deposited into a bank account, the protection becomes more complicated. 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 protection under § 222.11(3) applies to “earnings that are exempt under subsection (2)” and that are deposited in a financial institution. Since alimony is not technically “earnings” within the statutory definition, this six-month bank account protection may not apply to deposited alimony in 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.

This creates a practical problem. If alimony is protected from garnishment when it is owed by the former spouse but potentially unprotected after it is deposited into the recipient’s bank account, the recipient faces a narrow window of vulnerability. 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 demonstrate through bank records that every dollar in the account 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

The second context for alimony and garnishment involves the enforcement side. When a former spouse fails to pay court-ordered alimony, the recipient can use garnishment as a collection tool against the payor.

Florida Statute § 61.12 provides that any amount of money ordered as alimony is subject to garnishment under §§ 77.01 through 77.28. 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. In addition, § 61.1301 requires the court to enter an income withholding order (formerly called an income deduction order) upon entry of any order establishing, enforcing, or modifying an alimony obligation. This order directs the payor’s employer to withhold the alimony amount from each paycheck and send it to the appropriate depository.

The garnishment limits for alimony enforcement are higher than the limits for ordinary consumer debts. Under the Consumer Credit Protection Act at 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b), 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% can be garnished 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 are significantly higher than the 25% cap that applies to ordinary judgment creditors. The head of household exemption under § 222.11, which would otherwise protect a debtor’s wages entirely from garnishment, 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 Is Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy

A payor who owes alimony arrears cannot eliminate the obligation 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 bankruptcy proceedings. The automatic stay in bankruptcy may temporarily halt garnishment, but the alimony obligation survives the bankruptcy case and the recipient can resume collection after the stay lifts.

This nondischargeability extends to both the ongoing alimony obligation and any accumulated arrears. 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. Failure to remain current on alimony during the bankruptcy case is grounds for dismissal of the Chapter 13 petition.

Other Enforcement Tools Beyond Garnishment

Florida courts have additional remedies beyond garnishment for enforcing alimony obligations. Under § 61.11, the court can issue injunctions and writs to secure alimony payments. A payor who willfully refuses to pay alimony can be held in civil contempt under Rule 12.615 of the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. 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. This means the recipient bears the cost of filing enforcement motions, serving process, and attending hearings, though § 61.16 allows the court to order the payor to cover the recipient’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for enforcement proceedings.