Bostic v. Bostic, 95-01740

Decision Date11 June 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-01740,95-01740
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly 1396 Cathi A. BOSTIC, Appellant, v. Terrance A. BOSTIC, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Stevan T. Northcutt of Levine, Hirsch, Segall & Northcutt, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Edward O. Savitz of Bush Ross Gardner Warren & Rudy, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

QUINCE, Judge.

Cathi A. Bostic seeks review of a trial court order refusing to enforce an income deduction order against the former employer of her ex-husband, Terrance A. Bostic. We reverse because Mrs. Bostic's claim against her ex-husband's wages was superior to the claim on those wages made by the employer.

The Bostics were divorced in April 1990. In August 1992 Mr. Bostic was found in contempt of court for failure to pay court ordered child support of $1,700.00 monthly. On October 27, 1992, the trial court entered an income deduction order directing Mr. Bostic's current or former employer to deduct $2,200.00 per month from all income due and payable to Mr. Bostic. The income deduction order was served on Bush Ross Gardner Warren & Rudy, P.A., (Bush Ross), the Tampa law firm employing Mr. Bostic, who is an attorney. On January 1, 1991, when Mr. Bostic began his employment with the firm, he executed an employment agreement which provided, inter alia, that in any year in which fees collected for Mr. Bostic's work were not sufficient to justify the amount of compensation he had taken, the excess compensation would be treated as a loan from the firm.

During November 1992 Mr. Bostic resigned from the firm effective December 1, 1992. On December 1, 1992, Mr. Bostic gave the firm a promissory note in the sum of $88,871.76, representing his indebtedness to the firm under two prior notes and his 1992 salary shortfall. Under the terms of the note, the principal obligation was to be paid on or before November 30, 1993. Interest payments were to be made monthly. On December 4, 1992, Bush Ross filed a notice that the employer no longer provides income to employee, advising that Mr. Bostic terminated his employment, and as a result, no income became due and payable to him under the income deduction order.

On December 23, 1992, Mr. Bostic and the firm entered into another agreement, which was set forth in a letter dated December 18, 1992. The agreement in essence said that in consideration for cancellation of Mr. Bostic's employment agreement, he was entitled to sixty percent of his production attorney collections for the period beginning December 1, 1992, and ending November 30, 1993. In addition, the firm was to use reasonable and good faith efforts to effect collection of Mr. Bostic's production attorney collections, including filing suit. This agreement also provided that Mr. Bostic's share of monies collected would be applied to his outstanding debt to the firm until paid. Attached to the agreement was a copy of Mr. Bostic's promissory note to the firm and a calculation of the outstanding amount due on the note.

Thereafter, the firm began collecting fees for work done by Mr. Bostic and applying Mr. Bostic's sixty percent share to his firm indebtedness, as evidenced by the promissory note of December 1, 1992. In April 1993 Mrs. Bostic filed a motion seeking to enforce the income deduction order against Bush Ross. She argued that Mr. Bostic's share of the collected fees was subject to the income deduction order and should have been remitted to the government support depository for payment of Mr. Bostic's child support obligation. At a hearing before a general master held in December 1993 it was shown that by November 17, 1993, Mr. Bostic's share of the monies collected...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., Inc. v. NCRIC, In. (In re Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., Inc.)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. District of Columbia Circuit
    • 21 Septiembre 2011
    ...decisions recognize, a right to setoff against a matured debt prevails over a later assignment or garnishment. See id.; Bostic v. Bostic, 678 So.2d 366, 368 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (garnishee may claim a setoff of money due and owing if the setoff is based on a matured debt). 11. Under D.C.C......
  • In re D.C. Hosp. For Women Med. Ctr. Inc., Case No. 09-00010
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. District of Columbia Circuit
    • 21 Septiembre 2011
    ...decisions recognize, a right to setoff against a matured debt prevails over a later assignment or garnishment. See id.; Bostic v. Bostic, 678 So. 2d 366, 368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (garnishee may claim a setoff of money due and owing if the setoff is based on a matured debt). 16. Under ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT