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 can challenge and dissolve the writ. Florida’s garnishment statute imposes procedural requirements so detailed that creditor errors are common, and each error creates a potential ground for dissolution. A debtor who acts quickly and identifies the right basis for a challenge can recover frozen funds and force the creditor to start the process over.

Four separate grounds support dissolution: the garnished funds are exempt, the creditor’s factual allegations are untrue, the creditor failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements, or the writ has expired. Each ground involves different procedures, different deadlines, and different burdens of proof.

Claim of Exemption: The Most Common Defense

Filing a Claim of Exemption under § 77.041 is the most frequently used path to dissolving a garnishment. When the 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, files it with the court, and 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. A creditor who received the claim by hand delivery 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 by mail.

The automatic dissolution provision is underused. 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. The debtor must present evidence supporting the claimed exemption. A head of household claim typically requires tax returns showing dependent children, pay stubs, and bank statements tracing the source of deposits. A tenants by entireties claim requires 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.

Challenging the Creditor’s Factual Allegations

A separate dissolution remedy exists under § 77.07(1) for challenging the grounds the creditor relied on to obtain the writ. The court must set the motion for an immediate hearing. If the creditor cannot prove the factual basis for its motion, the garnishment is dissolved and the case proceeds as if no writ had been issued.

A post-judgment writ requires the creditor to 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. A pre-judgment writ additionally requires the creditor to show a reasonable probability of prevailing in the underlying action.

This ground 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. 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. Either party may demand a jury trial on these issues under § 77.08.

The 20-Day Deadline and Default

The debtor’s right to challenge the creditor’s factual allegations carries a hard deadline. Once the creditor serves the garnishee’s answer and the required § 77.055 notice, the debtor has 20 days to file and serve a motion to dissolve stating that any allegation in the creditor’s motion is untrue.

Missing this deadline is severe. The statute provides that an untimely motion to dissolve shall be stricken as an “unauthorized nullity,” and the proceedings move into a default posture. 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.

The 20-day window applies only to challenges based on untrue allegations in the creditor’s motion. It does not automatically bar a debtor from filing a separate Claim of Exemption, which operates under its own procedural track. Courts may, however, treat a missed 20-day deadline as a waiver covering all defenses, so debtors should not rely on this distinction without counsel.

Procedural Defects as Grounds for Dissolution

Florida courts have consistently held that Chapter 77 garnishment procedures must be strictly construed against the creditor. Even technical violations can result in dissolution (Cullen v. Marsh, 34 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).

Common procedural defects that support dissolution include:

• Failing to serve the debtor with the required notice and Claim of Exemption form on time
• Failing to serve the garnishee’s answer on the debtor within five days under § 77.055
• Omitting the required bond amount for a prejudgment garnishment
• Errors in the verified motion or affidavit
• Failing to state the judgment amount due and owing in the motion for writ
• Misidentifying 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, to specific parties, within specific timeframes, and any break in this chain creates a ground for dissolution. Failure to provide the post-answer notice required by § 77.055 is itself an independent ground for dissolving the writ, regardless of any other compliance.

Automatic Dissolution at Six Months

A writ of garnishment automatically dissolves if the creditor does not file a dismissal or motion for final judgment within six months. The creditor can extend this period to twelve months by serving a notice of extension on both the garnishee and the debtor, but a bank garnishment cannot exceed twelve months total. After the maximum period expires, the garnishee is discharged and the frozen funds must be released.

What Happens After a Writ of Garnishment Is Dissolved

Dissolution resets the case to its pre-garnishment position. 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. The debtor is not entitled to interest on the money that was frozen during the garnishment period.

Dissolution 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.

If the writ is dissolved because of the creditor’s procedural errors, the creditor may be liable for the garnishee’s attorney’s fees and costs under § 77.28. The debtor may also recover costs associated with challenging the improper garnishment.

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 the creditor knew or should have known was exempt. The leading case is Strickland v. Commerce Loan Co., 158 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963), 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.

Most wrongful garnishment claims arise when a creditor garnishes a clearly exempt account—an entireties account where the judgment is against only one spouse, or an account holding 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 for both compensatory and exemplary damages.

Practical Steps When Your Account Is Frozen

The first step when a debtor discovers a frozen bank account 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 matters 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 identify which statutory requirement the creditor failed to satisfy and cite the applicable Chapter 77 provision. The court must schedule an immediate hearing.

Contacting the creditor’s attorney directly with evidence of an exemption or procedural defect often produces the fastest result. If the evidence is clear—tax returns showing head of household status, account documentation showing entireties ownership—many creditor attorneys will voluntarily dismiss the garnishment rather than litigate a losing position. Complaining to the bank will not dissolve the writ. Only a court order, a voluntary dismissal by the creditor, or the clerk’s automatic dissolution after a missed objection deadline can release the frozen funds.