Background
The parties’ 2003 dissolution judgment approved and incorporated their marital settlement agreement, ordered compliance with all of its terms, and reserved jurisdiction to enter further enforcement orders. The agreement required the former husband to pay nonmodifiable alimony until age 65. After he became disabled, the former wife obtained judgments for unpaid alimony and an income withholding order taking 65% of his Social Security disability payments.
The former husband later challenged the withholding under the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, which generally caps garnishment at 25% of disposable earnings. He argued that the higher limits for support orders did not apply because the alimony arose from an agreement incorporated, but not merged, into the dissolution judgment. The trial court denied his motion to modify the original withholding order and later entered a second arrearage judgment for $500,724.74 and an amended 65% withholding order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed both sets of orders. It held that the prior appeal did not establish law of the case because the husband had not raised his Consumer Credit Protection Act argument in his initial appellate brief; an issue first raised in a reply brief is not considered.
On the merits, the court held that the dissolution judgment was an order for support issued by a court of competent jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b)(1). The judgment incorporated the settlement agreement, expressly ordered compliance with its alimony provision, and reserved enforcement jurisdiction. Thus, the general 25% cap did not apply, and withholding 65% of the husband’s disposable earnings to collect past-due alimony was permissible.
Key Takeaways
- An incorporated marital settlement agreement may be enforced as a judgment in Florida when the dissolution court retains enforcement jurisdiction.
- A nonmerged, nonmodifiable alimony provision can still qualify as a court-issued support order for purposes of the federal garnishment exception.
- The statutory requirements concerning state-law procedures, due process, and judicial review modify administrative procedures, not court-issued support orders.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a Florida dissolution judgment enforcing an incorporated alimony agreement may support withholding above the Consumer Credit Protection Act’s ordinary 25% garnishment ceiling. The court rejected a contrary Maryland decision because Florida law permits enforcement of such incorporated settlement terms through the judgment itself.