A Florida court recently ruled that garnishing over 25% of a former husband's social security benefits to enforce an alimony agreement does not violate federal law. This decision affects John T. Kennedy, who has been ordered to pay alimony to his ex-wife, Alison Kennedy, following their divorce. The ruling clarifies how the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act applies to alimony payments and garnishments.
The case, John T. Kennedy v. Alison Kennedy, was filed in the District Court of Appeal of Florida under docket number 4D2025-2845. The court's decision, issued on October 7, 2026, addresses the legality of garnishing a portion of Kennedy's social security disability payments to satisfy his alimony obligations.
John T. Kennedy and Alison Kennedy were previously married but divorced in 2003. Their divorce included a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) that required John to pay Alison monthly alimony, starting at $15,000 and decreasing over time until he turned 65. The agreement specified that the alimony was nonmodifiable, meaning it could not be changed or reduced for any reason.
In 2013, John was deemed disabled by the Social Security Administration, which impacted his ability to earn income. By 2017, he had accrued significant alimony arrears, leading to a money judgment against him for $240,000. In 2020, Alison sought to garnish 65% of John's disposable earnings, including his social security payments, to recover the overdue alimony. The trial court approved this garnishment, which John later appealed.
In his appeal, John argued that the garnishment violated the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, which generally limits garnishments to 25% of disposable earnings. He contended that his alimony obligation, originating from the MSA and not a court order, did not meet the criteria for higher garnishment limits outlined in the Act.
The court ruled that the income withholding orders (IWOs) that allowed for the garnishment of over 25% of John's social security benefits did not violate the federal law. The judges, including Judge Gross, noted that the dissolution judgment incorporated the MSA and included an order for support issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court stated, "The dissolution judgment constituted an 'order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction' within the meaning of section 1673(b)(1)'s exception to the 25% garnishment limit."
The ruling emphasized that even though the MSA was not merged into the final judgment, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement's terms. This means that the alimony obligations outlined in the MSA could still be enforced through the court system.
The court's decision also highlighted that the federal law allows for exceptions to the 25% garnishment limit, particularly for court-issued support orders. The judges rejected John's argument that his alimony obligation was not subject to these exceptions, affirming that the trial court had acted within its rights to garnish his benefits.
This ruling has significant implications for individuals facing similar situations. It clarifies that courts in Florida can enforce nonmodifiable alimony obligations, even if they stem from a marital settlement agreement rather than a direct court order. This case sets a precedent for how alimony and garnishment laws interact under federal regulations.
Looking ahead, John T. Kennedy may have the option to appeal this ruling, although the court did not indicate any specific grounds for an appeal in its opinion. The decision is not final until any motions for rehearing are resolved. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future legal actions.