## Facts

- Bruce D. Berlinger (former husband) and Roberta Sue Casselberry (former wife) divorced in 2007 after entering a marital settlement agreement.
- The agreement, incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution, required Berlinger to pay Casselberry **$16,000 per month** in permanent alimony.
- Berlinger did not work and had no meaningful income outside several family discretionary trusts (the Berlinger Discretionary Trusts).
- The trusts paid Berlinger’s living and personal expenses, largely by paying vendors directly (e.g., mortgage, property taxes, insurance, utilities, food, and other living expenses).
- Berlinger also used a credit card that was paid by the trusts for additional expenses.
- The trusts contained **spendthrift provisions** and gave the trustee discretion over distributions, including payments made directly to others for Berlinger’s benefit.
- In May 2011, Berlinger voluntarily stopped paying alimony while continuing to have his expenses paid by the trusts.
- Casselberry sought enforcement of the alimony order, including contempt; after a partial settlement still left arrears, the trial court issued writs of garnishment against the corporate trustee.
- Around the same period, Berlinger transferred real-property interests he had held in his own name into a newly created irrevocable trust (an irrevocable life insurance trust) without disclosing the transfer to Casselberry.
- Casselberry then moved for a **continuing writ of garnishment** that would apply to Berlinger’s present and future trust distributions to satisfy ongoing alimony.
- The trustee and Berlinger objected, arguing that discretionary trust distributions subject to a spendthrift clause could not be garnished, even for alimony.
- The trial court entered a continuing writ directing that future disbursements from the discretionary trusts to or for Berlinger’s benefit be paid to Casselberry unless no alimony was owed at the time of the disbursement; the court also found Berlinger in contempt.

## Issues

1. Whether a former spouse with an alimony judgment is an “exception creditor” who may reach distributions from a spendthrift trust under Florida law.
2. Whether Florida law permits a **continuing writ of garnishment** to intercept distributions from a **discretionary** trust (including payments made to third parties for the beneficiary’s benefit) to satisfy ongoing alimony.
3. Whether such a writ improperly compels discretionary distributions or allows a creditor to reach protected trust property beyond amounts actually distributed.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida **affirmed** the trial court’s order.
- The court affirmed the contempt ruling without discussion.
- The court held the trial court had authority to issue a continuing writ of garnishment against the discretionary trusts to enforce Berlinger’s alimony obligation despite the trusts’ spendthrift and discretionary provisions.
- The court approved the order’s structure because it did not require the trustee to make distributions; it redirected distributions **if and when** the trustee chose to make them to or for Berlinger, unless no alimony was then due.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida Trust Code section **736.0503**, a spouse or former spouse with a support judgment is an **exception creditor** whose remedies are not barred by a spendthrift provision.
- Under section **736.0504**, a creditor generally may not compel a distribution from a discretionary trust, and the beneficiary’s discretionary interest is ordinarily not subject to creditor process before distribution.
- Reading sections 736.0503 and 736.0504 together, a court may grant relief to an exception creditor seeking support, while still respecting the trustee’s discretion by limiting the remedy to interception of distributions actually made.
- A continuing writ of garnishment may be used to redirect future trust disbursements to or for the beneficiary to satisfy support obligations, so long as the order does not require the trustee to invade corpus or make distributions that otherwise would not occur.

## Conclusion

Berlinger v. Casselberry holds that a former spouse owed alimony may obtain a continuing writ of garnishment against distributions from a discretionary spendthrift trust, because Florida law treats support creditors as exception creditors and permits interception of trust payments actually made to or for the beneficiary, without compelling the trustee to make discretionary distributions or awarding trust property beyond those disbursements.


Berlinger v. Casselberry, 133 So. 3d 961 (2013)