Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
An agreement making alimony nonmodifiable does not necessarily limit collection to the rules governing ordinary debts. Once a divorce judgment incorporates the agreement and orders compliance, unpaid support may remain enforceable through that judgment. A recent Florida decision upheld withholding of 65% of the former husband’s Social Security payments to collect alimony arrears. The court rejected his argument that the obligation was merely contractual and subject to a 25% garnishment ceiling. If you are seeking overdue support or challenging an income withholding order, a Miami alimony attorney can review the agreement, judgment, and applicable collection rules.
History of the Case
It is reported that the parties’ 2003 dissolution judgment approved and incorporated their marital settlement agreement without merging it into the judgment. It expressly ordered compliance with the agreement and reserved jurisdiction to enter further orders. The agreement established declining monthly alimony payments that would end when the former husband turned 65 and stated that the obligation could not be modified.
Allegedly, the Social Security Administration later determined that the former husband was disabled. In 2017, the former wife obtained a $240,000 judgment for alimony arrears. In 2020, the court entered an income withholding order directing garnishment of 65 percent of his disposable earnings from Social Security disability payments
Reportedly, the ongoing alimony obligation ended in April 2023. The collection dispute continued over past-due support. In 2026, the court entered another judgment for $500,724.74 and an amended withholding order maintaining the 65% rate. The husband appealed.
Alimony Garnishment Limits
On appeal, the former husband argued that the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act generally caps garnishment at 25% of disposable earnings. He maintained that his nonmodifiable obligation arose from a private agreement rather than a qualifying court support order because the agreement had been incorporated but not merged.
The court considered the argument despite an earlier appeal affirming the original withholding order. The specific federal statutory issue had been raised only in a reply brief in that earlier appeal and had not been decided. The law-of-the-case doctrine therefore did not prevent review of it now.
The court explained that federal law permits higher withholding limits for qualifying support orders. Those limits range from 50 to 65%, depending on circumstances such as other dependents and the age of the arrears.
The dissolution judgment qualified because it incorporated the agreement, expressly ordered the parties to follow its provisions, and retained enforcement jurisdiction. Under Florida law, incorporation and retained jurisdiction allowed enforcement through the judgment even without merger. The agreement’s nonmodifiable terms did not make the court’s command to pay support disappear.
The court rejected contrary reasoning from a Maryland case. It also held that certain statutory language about state-law procedures, due process, and judicial review modified the administrative-procedure portion of the federal exception, rather than imposing the limitation urged by the former husband on this court-issued support order.
Based on the foregoing, the court affirmed the challenged orders. It noted that the former husband did not argue for a lower support-withholding limit based on supporting another spouse or dependent child. The ruling therefore should not be read as setting 65% as the rate for every alimony case or as addressing every type of federal benefit.
Discuss Your Family Law Concerns With Sandy T Fox
If you have questions about unpaid alimony, income withholding, or enforcement of a marital settlement agreement, Miami family law attorney Sandy T. Fox can assess the orders and payment history in your case. Contact the Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A., at 800-596-0579 to schedule a consultation.