Beardsley v. Admiral Ins. Co., 94-1436
| Decision Date | 21 December 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1436,94-1436 |
| Citation | 647 So.2d 327 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D4 Grant L. BEARDSLEY, Appellant, v. ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wilkins, Frohlich, Jones, Hevia, Russell & Sutter, P.A., and Phillip J. Jones, Port Charlotte, for appellant.
Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., and Bridget Ann Berry and Mark F. Bideau, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and COPE, JJ.
Grant L. Beardsley appeals an adverse final judgment in a garnishment proceeding. We reverse.
Appellee Admiral Insurance Company ("creditor") obtained a judgment against appellant Beardsley ("debtor") in an action on a promissory note. Creditor then served a writ of garnishment on NationsBank of Florida. The bank filed an answer stating that it had two accounts titled jointly in the name of debtor and Sue M. Beardsley. 1 The two accounts held approximately $5,000.
Debtor filed a motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment. He filed an affidavit stating that the money in the accounts was entitled to exemption under section 222.21, Florida Statutes (1993). Section 222.21 provides in part:
Money received by any debtor as pensioner of the United States within 3 months next preceding the issuing of an execution, attachment, or garnishment process may not be applied to the payment of the debts of the pensioner when it is made to appear by the affidavit of the debtor or otherwise that the pension money is necessary for the maintenance of the debtor's support or a family supported wholly or in part by the pension money.
Id. Sec. 222.21(1). 2 Debtor stated that the funds in the accounts were retirement funds 3 received within the three preceding months and that the funds were needed for the maintenance and support of the debtor and his wife, Sue M. Beardsley. The trial court conducted a non-evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to dissolve. The debtor appealed the non-final order denying the motion to dissolve and this court affirmed without opinion. Beardsley v. Admiral Ins. Co., 634 So.2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (table).
After resolution of the interlocutory appeal, the debtor filed a notice for trial. The creditor filed a motion for entry of final judgment, contending that all issues in the case had been resolved by the interlocutory appeal. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the creditor and this appeal followed.
In our view the creditor has misapprehended the effect of the interlocutory appeal in this case. The debtor's non-final appeal 4 asserted that the debtor was entitled to immediate release of the funds in the accounts as a matter of law. The debtor argued that the creditor's position was insufficient as a matter of law, and that the debtor was entitled to have the writ of garnishment dissolved forthwith.
In its brief, the creditor argued that there was a factual issue regarding the exempt status of the funds in the accounts. Specifically, the creditor relied on debtor's account statements and a canceled check which made it appear that there had been a deposit or deposits into the accounts from a source other than a pension payment. The creditor also argued that if nonexempt funds are commingled with exempt funds, then the exemption is completely lost for all funds in the accounts. This court affirmed without opinion.
In our view the prior panel in this case simply concluded that there was a factual issue regarding the identity of the funds in the accounts which could not be resolved as a matter of law, but instead created a factual issue which must be set for trial. See generally Sec. 77.07, Fla.Stat. (1993).
In construing another subdivision of section 222.21, Florida Statutes, this court has said:
[T]he terms of the statute must be interpreted in light of its intended aim. Here, the purpose of the statute is to confer on retirement plans a broad exemption from the claims of creditors. 2 In keeping with that purpose, exceptions to the rule of exemption should be narrowly limited.
2. It appears the legislature has made the policy decision that it should protect the assets of IRA's and pension plans, thereby promoting the financial independence of IRA and pension plan beneficiaries in their retirement years--in turn reducing the incidence and amount of requests for public financial assistance.
Dunn v. Doskocz, 590 So.2d 521, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citations omitted).
In keeping with the principles just stated, it is not correct to say that the commingling of a non-exempt deposit with an exempt account will automatically cause the entire account to lose its exempt status. 5
There is authority that a deposit of exempt funds in a bank does not affect a debtor's exemption, nor change the exempt character of the fund, so long as the source of the exempt funds is reasonably traceable. If it is impossible to separate out exempt from non-exempt funds, the general rule is that an exemption cannot lie.
In re Frazier, 116 B.R. 675, 678 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1990) (quoting 31 Am.Jur.2d Exemptions Sec. 224 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regions Bank v. Hyman
...91 F.Supp.3d 1239to dissolve the Writ, and therefore the Platinum Bank Writ should be dissolved. See Beardsley v. Admiral Ins. Co., 647 So.2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (prior panel affirmed denial of motion to dissolve writ; the factual dispute as to exempt status of funds should proceed to tr......
-
Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates
...311, 4 So.2d 251 (1941); In re Silvian's Estate, 347 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).11 § 77.07(2), Fla. Stat.; Beardsley v. Admiral Insurance Co., 647 So.2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).1 There are six accounts at issue in this opinion--three owned by the father and his wife and three owned by the......
-
Cadle Co. v. G & G ASSOCIATES
...566 So.2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); TST Impresso, Inc. v. J.C. Nomer, Inc., 703 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Beardsley v. Admiral Ins. Co., 647 So.2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Reichenbach v. Chemical Bank of New Jersey, 623 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Elvine v. Public Fin. Co., 196 So.2d 2......
-
Stenger v. Freeman, Case No: 6:17-mc-24-Orl-40KRS
...provided, the appropriate remedy is to provide the required notice, not to disallow the garnishment. See Beardsley v. Admiral Ins. Co., 647 So. 2d 327, 330 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (reversing final judgment for compliance with statutory notice requirements after plaintiff failed to pro......