Silversmith v. Silversmith
| Decision Date | 24 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D01-599.,3D01-599. |
| Citation | 797 So.2d 653 |
| Parties | Arthur SILVERSMITH, Appellant, v. Rita SILVERSMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel Kaplan, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Rita M. Fernandez, in proper person.
Before COPE and GERSTEN, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.
As the former wife in the instant case concedes, the trial court erred when it characterized its equitable distribution lump sum award as "spousal support" and ordered that the award be garnished from the former husband's wages by way of an income deduction order directing payment through the central depository. It is well settled that an income deduction order may not be entered for purposes of effectuating the trial court's plan for equitable distribution. See § 61.1301, Fla. Stat.(2000); see also Colligan v. Colligan, 759 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3DCA 2000)
; Nash v. Nash, 688 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Board of Pension Trustees of the City General Employees Pension Plan v. Vizcaino, 635 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) () Accordingly, the order under review is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter an Amended Income Deduction Order reflecting only that amount permitted to be garnished from the former husband's wages as a result of his child support and alimony obligations. The Equitable Distribution Award to the former wife cannot be included in the Income Deduction Order. Rather, it is payable as set forth in the parties' Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Trustees of Orlando Police Pension Plan v. Langford
...1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (income deduction orders cannot be used to achieve equitable distribution of pension); Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (income deduction order garnishing husband's wages reversed when used to effectuate equitable distribution); Colligan v......
-
Carollo v. Carollo
...held that income deduction orders are not available to achieve an equitable distribution of marital assets. Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Colligan v. Colligan, 759 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(recognizing that income deduction order pursuant to section 61.130......
- Tunsil v. State
-
Spalding v. Spalding, 4D01-3037.
...alimony or support, just as a lump sum payment for equitable distribution cannot be construed as support. See Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We are not concerned, here, with any right that a party may have to an income deduction order for attorney's fees ......
-
Enforcement of orders and judgments
...income deduction order cannot be entered for the purposes of effectuating the equitable distribution plan. [ Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).] A trial court has no jurisdiction to enforce an oral agreement made subsequent to the final judgment and not part of t......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...alimony may be awarded either for spousal support or as part of equitable distribution of marital property); Silversmith v. Silversmith, 797 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (income deduction order cannot be entered for purposes of effectuating equitable distribution plan); Hannon v. Hannon, 7......