Ex parte McCall

Decision Date28 February 1992
Citation596 So.2d 4
PartiesEx parte Edmac McCALL. Re Orette McCALL v. Edmac McCALL. 1901941.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Hugh M. Caffey, Jr., Brewton, for petitioner.

Dawn Wiggins Hare of Hare & Hare, Monroeville, for respondent.

KENNEDY, Justice.

We granted certiorari review in order to determine whether workmen's compensation benefits are exempt from income withholding orders and/or garnishment for a child support arrearage.

Orette McCall and Edmac McCall were divorced in 1974, and Orette was awarded custody of their minor child. Edmac was ordered to pay $50.00 per week in child support. Based on his failure to pay the ordered child support, the trial court, on January 17, entered a judgment against Edmac in the amount of $24,000, plus court costs and interest. In order to collect the judgment, Orette filed a motion for income withholding and further sought to garnish Edmac's workmen's compensation benefits.

The trial court denied the motion for income withholding and granted Edmac's oral motion to quash the process of garnishment. The trial court found that the workmen's compensation benefits were not subject to a withholding order or a garnishment action, because of § 25-5-86, Ala.Code 1975. The Court of Civil Appeals held that workmen's compensation benefits were subject to withholding and garnishment.

Edmac argues that the Workmen's Compensation Act exempts workmen's compensation benefits from withholding or garnishment for the satisfaction of child support obligations. Orette argues that a child support obligation is not a "debt or liability" and is therefore not exempt from withholding or garnishment.

Section 25-5-86(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides:

"Claims for compensation or awards, or judgments or agreements to pay compensation owned by an injured employee or his dependents shall not be assignable and shall be exempt from seizure or sale or garnishment for the payment of any debt or liability. There shall be no right to waive this exemption."

However, a child support obligation is not a "debt" in the ordinary sense of that word. By basic morality and the laws of the state, a parent is bound to contribute to the support of his minor children. Pace v. Glover, 550 So.2d 1039 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).

The Workmen's Compensation Act anticipates that the benefits will be used by the employee at least partially for the support of his dependents, just as he would have used his salary for that purpose. Where the parent/employee dies in the course of employment, the Act provides a right of action whereby his dependent children may recover his workmen's compensation benefits, to replace the support they would have received from him if he had lived. Yarchak v. Munford Inc., 570 So.2d 648 (Ala.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 942, 111 S.Ct. 2237, 114 L.Ed.2d 478 (1991).

We note that Social Security benefits and Veterans' Administration benefits may be used to satisfy child support obligations. See, Frazier v. Frazier, 455 So.2d 883 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Lott v. Lott, 440 So.2d 1090 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). A child support obligation is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Pressnell v. Pressnell, 519 So.2d 536 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). Also, Rule 32, Ala.R.Jud.Admin., specifically includes workmen's compensation benefits as "income" that may be factored...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • In re Poffenbarger
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • March 25, 2002
    ...of the Alabama courts underscore that protection of children is an important public policy of our state. See, e.g., McCall v. McCall, 596 So.2d 4, 5-6 (Ala.1992) (Alabama Supreme Court holding that workmen's compensation benefits are not exempt from income withholding orders and/or garnishm......
  • Campbell v. Davison, No. 2070465 (Ala. Civ. App. 8/15/2008)
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 15, 2008
    ...(Ala. Civ. App. 1997). On the other hand, Alabama law impresses upon parents a legal duty to support their minor children. Ex parte McCall, 596 So. 2d 4 (Ala. 1992); Miller v. Miller, 866 So. 2d 1150, 1157-58 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003); and Davis v. Gullenhall-Davis, 516 So. 2d 665 (Ala. Civ. Ap......
  • M.D.C v. K.D
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 15, 2008
    ...16 (Ala.Civ.App.1997). On the other hand, Alabama law impresses upon parents a legal duty to support their minor children. Ex parte McCall, 596 So.2d 4 (Ala.1992); Miller v. Miller, 866 So.2d 1150, 1157-58 (Ala.Civ.App.2003); Davis v. Gyllenhaal-Davis, 516 So.2d 665 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). A pa......
  • Ex parte M.D.C., No. 10771625 (Ala. 10/1/2009)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 1, 2009
    ...(Ala. Civ. App. 1997). On the other hand, Alabama law impresses upon parents a legal duty to support their minor children. Ex parte McCall, 596 So. 2d 4 (Ala. 1992); Miller v. Miller, 866 So. 2d 1150, 1157-58 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003); and Davis v. Gyllenhaal-Davis, 516 So. 2d 665 (Ala. Civ. Ap......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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