From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reyf v. Reyf

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 8, 1993
620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Summary

interpreting garnishment provisions of Fla. Stat. § 61.12

Summary of this case from Communications Center, Inc. v. Komatsu

Opinion

No. 92-2749.

June 8, 1993.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Richard Yale Feder, J.

Brian R. Hersh and Jeffrey Begens, Miami, for appellant.

Kramer Golden and Richard A. Golden, North Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.


Upon completion of her marital dissolution action, Cindy Reyf, the wife, obtained a final judgment against Alan Reyf, the husband, for attorneys' fees in the amount of $13,194. The wife then sought to obtain a continuing writ of garnishment under Section 61.12(1), Florida Statutes (1991), against the husband's salary to satisfy the judgment. The trial court refused to issue the continuing writ, and we affirm.

Section 61.12(1) provides for "garnishment to enforce and satisfy the orders and judgments of the court[s] of this state for alimony, suit money, or child support. . . ." However, while subpart (1) of the statute addresses garnishment, only subpart (2) authorizes a continuing writ of garnishment, which is a remedy separate and distinct from a writ of garnishment. Vetrick v. Hollander, 566 So.2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Subpart (2) provides that a continuing writ of garnishment will be available only to collect "alimony or child support or both", but does not mention suit money or attorneys' fees.

Although Section 61.12(1) was formerly held not to apply to final judgments, Sokolsky v. Kuhn, 405 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1981), this case was subsequently overruled by the Legislature when the words "and judgments" were added to the above-quoted language. See Ch. 84-135, § 1, at 425, Laws of Fla.; Cooper v. Cooper, 546 So.2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

We must interpret Section 61.12 as a whole, and in such a way as to give meaning to both of its constituent subparts. State v. Hayles, 240 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1970); Greenhut Constr. Co. v. Henry A. Knott, Inc., 247 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Therefore, we conclude that a continuing writ of garnishment is not available under Section 61.12 to satisfy a final judgment for attorneys' fees ancillary to a dissolution action. Compare Nichols v. Schwarz, 504 So.2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (continuing writ of garnishment authorized by § 61.12(2) only for collection of future periodic payments of alimony or child support).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Reyf v. Reyf

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 8, 1993
620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

interpreting garnishment provisions of Fla. Stat. § 61.12

Summary of this case from Communications Center, Inc. v. Komatsu
Case details for

Reyf v. Reyf

Case Details

Full title:CINDY REYF, APPELLANT, v. ALAN REYF, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 8, 1993

Citations

620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Martinez v. Golisting.com, Inc.

’ " Reeves v. State, 957 So.2d 625, 629 (Fla. 2007) (citing City of Tampa v. Thatcher Glass Corp., 445 So.2d…

Sachs v. Sachs

The husband appealed a non-final order entered after final judgment granting a continuing writ of garnishment…