Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneytrustdivorcealimonygarnishment
attorneytrustdivorcealimonyrespondent

Related Cases

Mears v. Addonizio, 336 N.J.Super. 474, 765 A.2d 260
View Case »
French v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 722 F.3d 1079
View Case »
In re Estate of Adams, 257 Mich.App. 230, 667 N.W.2d 904
View Case »
In re Estate of Chrisp, 276 Neb. 966, 759 N.W.2d 87
View Case »
In re Gerbing’s Estate, 61 Ill.2d 503, 337 N.E.2d 29, 74 A.L.R.3d 1087
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bacardi v. White, 463 So.2d 218, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 93

Facts

Luis and Adriana Bacardi were married for approximately two years and had no children. After their divorce, Mr. Bacardi agreed to pay Mrs. Bacardi $2,000 per month in alimony, but he ceased payments shortly thereafter. Mrs. Bacardi obtained judgments for unpaid alimony totaling $14,000 and $1,000 for attorney's fees. She served a writ of garnishment on the trustee of a spendthrift trust created for Mr. Bacardi, seeking to collect the owed amounts.

Shortly thereafter Mr. Bacardi ceased paying alimony. Mrs. Bacardi subsequently obtained two judgments for the unpaid alimony, with execution authorized, in the total amount of $14,000. She also obtained a third judgment for attorney's fees in the amount of $1,000 awarded incident to the divorce.

Issue

Whether disbursements from spendthrift trusts can be garnished to satisfy court ordered alimony and attorney's fee payments before such disbursements reach the debtor-beneficiary.

The issue presented is whether disbursements from spendthrift trusts can be garnished to satisfy court ordered alimony and attorney's fee payments before such disbursements reach the debtor-beneficiary.

Rule

Disbursements from spendthrift trusts, in certain limited circumstances, may be garnished to enforce court orders or judgments for alimony before such disbursements reach the debtor-beneficiary.

We quash the decision of the district court and hold that disbursements from spendthrift trusts, in certain limited circumstances, may be garnished to enforce court orders or judgments for alimony before such disbursements reach the debtor-beneficiary.

Analysis

The court analyzed the competing public policies of enforcing alimony obligations versus the validity of spendthrift trusts. It concluded that while spendthrift trusts serve important purposes, the enforcement of alimony orders is paramount in certain cases. The court determined that garnishment should be allowed as a last resort when traditional methods of enforcing alimony are ineffective.

We have weighed the competing public policies and, although we reaffirm the validity of spendthrift trusts, we conclude that in these types of cases the restraint of spendthrift trusts should not be an absolute bar to the enforcement of alimony orders or judgments.

Conclusion

The court quashed the district court's decision and held that garnishment of spendthrift trust disbursements for alimony is permissible under certain circumstances, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

Who won?

Adriana Bacardi prevailed in the case as the court ruled in her favor regarding the garnishment of trust disbursements for alimony.

Respondents urge that we approve the district court's decision and hold that the settlor's intent prevails over any public policy arguments which would allow the alienation of disbursements from the trust.

You must be