## Facts

- Christina Anamaria Alexander (mother) obtained a valid child-support order against Clifford Garland Harris (father) in 2009.
- From 2009 through 2016, the father did not pay child support, and the mother filed three separate motions for civil contempt and support enforcement without obtaining effective relief.
- By May 30, 2017, the child-support arrearage exceeded $91,000 (about $91,780.28).
- The father’s only income source was a discretionary special-needs trust containing a spendthrift provision.
- The trust was established under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p and funded with settlement proceeds tied to catastrophic injuries the father suffered as a minor.
- The trust was intended to provide supplemental support while maintaining the father’s eligibility for public assistance.
- The trust made recurring monthly disbursements of $3,035.59, paid directly to third parties to cover the father’s living expenses; the father never personally received the payments.
- The parties did not dispute that the father had no control over the trust, could not compel distributions, and could not direct the trustee to pay him money.
- The father’s monthly expenses averaged about $2,478, and the trust had a remaining balance of about $141,997.27 as of December 2016.
- In the most recent enforcement proceeding, the mother sought a continuing writ of garnishment directed to trust disbursements, arguing the spendthrift provision could not block collection of child support.
- The father opposed garnishment, arguing it would jeopardize his eligibility for federal assistance programs.
- The trial court found an arrearage but denied enforcement and the requested garnishment, concluding the father had no ability to pay and the court could not garnish discretionary disbursements from a special-needs trust.
- The mother appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida law allows a child-support creditor to obtain a continuing writ of garnishment attaching discretionary disbursements from a spendthrift special-needs trust made to or for the benefit of the beneficiary.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying enforcement on the ground that the father lacked ability to pay and that discretionary trust disbursements could not be garnished.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed.
- The court held the trial court erred in concluding it lacked authority to garnish discretionary payments made for the father’s benefit from the special-needs trust.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, recognizing the availability of continuing garnishment against such disbursements to satisfy child-support arrears.

## Legal Principles

- Under section 736.0503(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), a spendthrift provision is unenforceable against a beneficiary’s child who has a judgment or court order for support or maintenance.
- Under section 736.0503(3), an exception creditor may obtain an order attaching “present or future distributions to or for the benefit of the beneficiary,” which includes payments routed to third parties for the beneficiary’s expenses.
- A court generally cannot force a trustee to make a discretionary distribution; however, when the trustee exercises discretion and makes a distribution, that distribution may be subject to a continuing writ of garnishment for support obligations. (Bacardi v. White)
- Section 736.0503 does not categorically bar garnishment of discretionary distributions made by a trustee exercising discretion in support cases; discretionary disbursements can be reached once made. (Berlinger v. Casselberry)
- Garnishment of spendthrift-trust distributions to satisfy support obligations is an equitable remedy used when traditional enforcement methods have been ineffective. (Bacardi v. White)
- Assertions that garnishment of a special-needs trust will affect federal public-assistance eligibility do not defeat garnishment where no controlling federal authority is identified as barring collection for child support.

## Conclusion

Alexander v. Harris holds that a parent who is owed child support may seek a continuing writ of garnishment attaching discretionary disbursements from a spendthrift special-needs trust made to or for the beneficiary’s benefit, and the trial court erred by treating the trust’s discretionary and special-needs features as an absolute bar to garnishment after traditional enforcement efforts had failed.


Alexander v. Harris, 278 So. 3d 721 (2019)