Filing # 155838659 E-Filed 08/22/2022 04:33:02 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AH

CASE NO. 50-2016-CA-009292-XXXX-MB

FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as successor

by merger to Bank of Coral Gables, LLC,

PY
Plaintiff,
vs.

CO
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, et al.,

Defendants.

D
___________________________________/

FIRST AMERICAN BANK’S VERIFIED IE

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION
IF
Plaintiff, First American Bank (“First American”), pursuant Fla. Stat. § 77.041, responds
RT

to Defendants, Laurence S. Schneider’s and Stephanie L. Schneider’s, Claims of Exemption filed

CE

on August 10, 2022 as follows:

1. On September 22, 2020, this Court entered a Final Judgment (“Judgment”) in

A

favor of First American and ordered Laurence Schneider (“Laurence”) to pay First American
T

$1,547,391.54, which bears interest at 6.03% per year.1

O

2. The Judgment allowed for its immediate execution, including the language “for
N

which let execution issue.” Execution is valid and outstanding.

1
The Judgment was also entered against Stephanie Schneider (“Stephanie” and together with
Schneider, “Schneiders”). On March 9, 2022, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered an order
reversing the Judgment against Stephanie in Case No. 4D21-571 (the “Appeal”). On March 22, 2022,
First American filed a Motion for Rehearing and Motion or Rehearing En Banc in the Appeal, which was
denied on April 28, 2022. On May 31, 2022, First American filed a Notice to Invoke Discretionary
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in the Florida Supreme Court, and on June 6, 2022, filed its Jurisdictional
Brief. On July 14, 2022, Stephanie filed her Amended Answer to First American’s Jurisdictional Brief.
The matter remains pending before the Florida Supreme Court as of the date of this Motion.

1
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI, FL 33131 I T 305-358-6363
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK, 08/22/2022 04:33:02 PM
 3. On July 15, 2022, the Clerk of this Court issued two writs of garnishment: (1) one

to BankUnited, N.A. (the “BankUnited Writ”); and (2) one to First Horizon Bank (the “First

Horizon Writ” and together with the BankUnited Writ, the “Writs”).

4. In compliance with Fla. Stat. § 77.041(2), Plaintiff has served the Writs of

Garnishment on Schneider and filed the required certificates of service.

5. On August 10, 2022, the three Claim of Exemption and Request for Hearing

PY
forms were filed by the Schneiders (the “Claims of Exemption”.

CO
6. As to the BankUnited Writ, both Schneiders claimed the following exemptions:

a. I provide more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent, have

D
net earnings of more than $750 per week, but have not agreed in writing to have
IE
my wages garnished (the “Head of Family Exemption”).
IF
b. An “other exemption provided by law,” described as: “The Account sought to be
RT

garnished herein is not subject to garnishment due to the funds therein derive

from a business wherein the ownership is held in TBE by both Stephanie and
CE

Laurence Schneider, and the salary or disbursement funds held in this account are

wages and not subject to garnishment.” (the “BankUnited TBE Exemption”).

A

7. As to the First Horizon Writ, the Schneiders claimed the following exemptions:
T

a. The Head of Family Exemption

O

b. An “other exemption provided by law,” described as: “Their Account sought to be

N

garnished herein is titled as ‘Tenants by the Entireties property’ which is titled

‘per tout,’ and therefore is NOT subject to garnishment by any individual creditor

of the Spouses.” (the “First Horizon TBE Exemption”).

Copies of the Claims of Exemption are attached as Composite Exhibit A.


2
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI, FL 33131 I T 305-358-6363
 LEGAL ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

As a threshold matter, in Florida, the burden of proving entitlement to a claimed

exemption is on a judgment debtor. See Cole v. Am. Capital Partners Ltd., Inc., 2010 WL

114890, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (“[w]here a party claims an exemption, the burden of proof

generally falls on the party claiming entitlement to such objection.”) (citations omitted).

A. The Head of Family Exemption

PY
As to the Head of Family Exemption, the Schneiders are husband and wife and have two

CO
adult children. As a matter of law, as spouses, only one of the Schneiders can claim the Head of

Family Exemption. See Parra v. Minto Townpark, LLC, No. 08-14168-CIV, 2010 WL

D
11504487, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2010) (holding that judgment debtors “cannot both be heads
IE
of family” for purposes of attempting to dissolve a writ of garnishment); G.E.E.N. Corp. v.
IF
Southeast Toyota Distributors, Inc., No. 93-632-CV-ORL-19, 1997 WL 561307, at * 3 (M.D.
RT

Fla. Sept. 2, 1997) (explaining that “[i]t is axiomatic that both spouses, for the purposes of Fla.

Stat. § 222.11 cannot be the head of family.”). As they cannot simultaneously claim the
CE

exemption, a hearing is required to determine both the validity of the Head of Family Exemption

and which of the Schneiders may so claim it, if either may do so at all.2
A

To qualify as a head of family pursuant to § 222.11, Florida Statutes, the claimant must
T

prove that his or she is providing more than one-half of the support for a child or other
O

dependent. If a claimant is a head of family and has disposable earnings in excess of $750 per
N

week, the claimant’s disposable earnings up to $750 are exempt from garnishment, but a

judgment creditor may recover 25% of the disposable income above that threshold. See Maki v.

Multibank 2009-1 RES-ADC Venure, LLC, 310 So. 3d 1056, 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Head of

2
In her Fact Information Sheet, Mrs. Schneider disclosed that her spouse was the head of
household. Unredacted copies of the Schneider’s Fact Information Sheets will be provided prior to a
hearing on the Claims of Exemption.

3
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI, FL 33131 I T 305-358-6363
family earnings are exempt for six months after they are received and credited or deposited in a

bank account if the funds can be traced and properly identified as earnings. Fla. Stat. §

222.11(3). The burden to trace earnings is on the claimant. Id.

i. Head of Family

A claimant must first prove that he or she is providing more than one-half of the support

for a child or other dependent. To date, neither of the Schneiders have provided First American

PY
or the Court with any such proof. In his Fact Information Sheet, Laurence disclosed two adult

CO
children. He did not disclose Stephanie’s income. Jordyn Schneider, the Schneider’s adult

daughter, incorporated at least two corporations in the last few years. It is reasonable to believe

D
that Jordyn is independent, or at a minimum, does not receive more than half her support from
IE
the Schneiders. Zachary Schneider, the Schneider’s adult son, attends college, and may certainly
IF
receive less than half of his support from the Schneiders. Further, without additional information
RT

about their income, even if one or both adult children receives more than half of their support

from their parents, it is impossible to determine based on the current record whether Laurence or
CE

Stephanie provides that support – and as spouses, they cannot both qualify as head of family.

ii. Earnings
A

Not all income qualifies as exempt earnings under § 222.11, Florida Statutes. The statute
T

defines earnings as “compensation paid or payable, in money of a sum certain, for personal
O

services or labor whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, or bonus.” Emphasis

N

added. Cases throughout both Florida state and federal courts make clear that a debtor that owns

or controls a business cannot circumvent a judgment creditor’s ability to garnish by simply

calling the money he or she withdraws “wages.”


4
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI, FL 33131 I T 305-358-6363
 Courts look to a number of factors in determining if payments are exempt salary/wages or

actually come from running the business. Some common factors include whether the debtor

receives regular compensation dictated by the terms of an arms-length employment agreement,

how much control the debtor has over the amount of his compensation and terms of his

employment. See Kane v. Stewart Tilghman, 197 So. 3d at 142 (internal citations omitted). In the

Kane case, the Fourth District concluded that where the judgment debtors operated under

PY
contracts negotiated only between themselves, controlled their business, could not be terminated

CO
except by themselves, and were not paid in accordance with their purported contracts, but rather

received payment when the business could afford to do so, the payments from the business to the

D
judgment debtors were not salary, but were actually akin to shareholder distributions that were
IE
outside the scope of the exemption found in § 222.11, Florida Statutes. Id.
IF
In Brock v. Westport Recovery Corp., 832 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the Fourth
RT

District Court of Appeal noted that “the relevant inquiry is often whether a person’s employment

is a salaried job or in the nature of running a business.” 832 So. 2d at 211. In Brock, where the
CE

judgment debtor’s compensation was made up of discretionary distributions from a family-

owned business, there was no formal employment agreement between the judgment debtor and
A

the business, earnings were previously characterized as disbursements from profits, the judgment
T

debtor’s pay stub did not correspond to his year to date earnings, and the judgment debtor could
O

not satisfactorily explain why his distributions decreased by almost half in one year, it was not
N

error for the trial court to determine that that head of family exemption was inapplicable because

the judgment debtor’s income did not qualify as earnings exempted under the statute. Id. at 212.

Numerous other cases have found similarly. In In re Zamora, 187 B.R. 783 (Bankr. S.D.

Fla. 1995), the court found that earnings from a business controlled by a debtor were not exempt


5
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI, FL 33131 I T 305-358-6363
under § 222.11, Florida Statutes. 187 B.R. at 785. In that case, the debtor was the 100% owner of

a corporation which he managed and an attorney in sole practice. He had complete control over

the amount of his compensation and the terms of his employment, and no employment contract

existed between the debtor and his legal practice or his or corporation. The court noted that

certainly the legislature did not intent to exempt all funds a person chooses to “draw” from a

business where that same individual has full discretion over what to pay or not pay in order to

PY
fund the draw. Id.

CO
Such is the case here. In his Fact Information Sheet, Laurence disclosed his employers as

Real Estate & Finance, Inc. (“REF”), 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC (“1st Fidelity”), Mortgage

D
Resolution Services (“MRS”), and S&A Capital Partners, Inc. (“S&A”). Laurence listed his
IE
position/job description as “principal,” and has been discussed with this Court on prior
IF
occasions, upon information and belief, these entities are owned and controlled by Laurence.
RT

Laurence’s compensation is unclear. In his Fact Information Sheet, he lists his rate of pay as

$40,000 once per year, but it is unclear which entity pays this. The 2020 W-2 statements attached
CE

to the Fact Information Sheet do not clarify this confusion – it appears that in 2020, S&A paid

Laurence $40,000, but that the entirety of that $40,000 was withheld in federal income taxes,
A

social security taxes, and Medicare taxes, which would make his take home income $0. Laurence
T

did not provide his last two filed income tax returns as required by the Fact Information Sheet,
O

which might have clarified this confusion. Stephanie’s income is not disclosed in the Fact
N

Information Sheet as required, but her W-2 from S&A is attached to the Fact Information Sheet

is identical to Laurence’s and reflects income of $40,000, all of which was withheld in taxes.


6
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI, FL 33131 I T 305-358-6363
 But bank account records from Northern Trust for the Schneider’s personal account make

clear that the Schneiders made far in excess of $0 or even $40,000 each in 2020.3 In fact, based

on the bank records, in 2020 the Schneiders received at least $552,561.80 in income, at least

$320,000 of which was from 1st Fidelity. The deposits from 1st Fidelity did not occur on

predictable dates or in predictable amounts as would be expected for transfers related to salary or

wages. Instead, the records make clear that transfers from 1st Fidelity are discretionary

PY
distributions, taken when Laurence needs money and when 1st Fidelity has available money to

CO
distribute.

The transfers making up the remaining amount also did not occur on predictable dates or

D
amounts, and upon information and belief, most if not all of these transfers came from S&A and
IE
REF. Transfers from S&A are unlikely to be exempt earnings. In S&A’s Answers to the
IF
Continuing Writs of Garnishment Against Laurence S. Schneider and Stephanie Schneider, S&A
RT

disclosed it was not indebted to Laurence or Stephanie by reason of salary or wages. As

Laurence is a shareholder of S&A, as well as the president, and because the bank records do not
CE

indicate regular deposits of a sum certain, it is reasonable to conclude that Laurence controls his

own compensation and terms of employment, and that any income from S&A is from running
A

the business and made up of discretionary distributions, not from personal services or labor. Such
T

earnings are non-exempt. The same is true from any transfers from REF and MRS.
O

Laurence has not provided the Court or First American with any employment contracts
N

between himself and any of these entities that would support a finding that his income qualifies

as exempt earnings. The reality is that Laurence owns and controls these entities, controls when

and how much he is paid, and controls the terms of his own employment. Even if one of the

hearing on the Claims of Exemption. -

Unredacted account records for REDand 2021 will be submitted directly to the Court prior to a


7
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVAR D I MIAMI, FL 33131 I T 305-358-6363
Schneiders can prove they qualify as head of family, the earnings are in the nature of running a

business, and thus not exempt from garnishment under § 222.11(b), Florida Statutes.

iii. Tracing

Even if Laurence can sustain his burden of proof that he qualifies as head of family, and

that earnings are exempt from garnishment, for the exemption to apply to wages already paid, the

funds must (1) be deposited in a bank account; and (2) traced and properly identified as wages.

PY
In re Lancaster, 161 B.R. 308, 309 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1993), citing In re McCafferty, 81 B.R. 99

CO
(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1987). The burden to conduct such tracing is on the claimant. § 222.11(c),

Florida Statutes. Additionally, the exemption only applies for 6 months. Id. First American is

D
entitled to garnish 25% of the portion of REDACTE income that exceeds the $750 threshold.
IE
Maki v. Multibank 2009-1 RES-ADC Venure, LLC, 310 So. 3d 1056, 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
IF
B. The BankUnited TBE Exemption
RT

There are six required characteristics to hold property as tenants by the entireties:

(1) unity of possession (joint ownership and control);

CE

(2) unity of interest (the interests in the account must be identical);

(3) unity of title (the interests must have originated in the same instrument);
A

(4) unity of time (the interests must have commenced simultaneously);

T

(5) survivorship; and

O

(6) unity of marriage (the parties must be married at the time the property became titled
N

in their joint names).

Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45, 52 (Fla. 2001)


8
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI, FL 33131 I T 305-358-6363
 BankUnited’s answer to the BankUnited Writ clearly discloses that the garnished account

is titled only in the name of Laurence. Thus, as a matter of law, the BankUnited TBE Exemption

must fail, as it does not possess the required unity of title.

The Schneiders’ attempt to claim that the funds in the account are exempt because they

derive from a business held as tenants by the entireties in unavailing. The Schneiders have not

disclosed what business the funds in the account derive from, have not offered proof that this

PY
business is owned by them as tenants by the entireties, and have not provided any legal authority

CO
for the position that even if the business is owned as such, that once funds leave the business and

are deposited into a bank account owned by only one of them, the funds still retain their exempt

D
nature.

C. The First Horizon TBE Exemption IE

IF
The First Horizon account is not held by the Schneiders as tenants by the entireties and
RT

thus is subject to garnishment. The signature card for the account evidences that it is a joint

account:
CE

(For consumer accounts, select and initial.}

D Single-Pa rty Account _ _ _ lZI Mu ltip le-Pa rty Acco
A

D Multiple~Party Account - Te nancy by the Entireties _ _ _

T

Because the Schneiders expressly designated a multiple party account in the face of a
O

tenancy by the entireties option, there is no presumption that a tenancy by the entireties exists,
N

and absent evidence of fraud, this disclaimer ends the inquiry as to whether a tenancy of the

entireties was intended – it was not. See Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So. 2d 45,

60–61 (Fla. 2001).


9
MELAND I BUDWICK
3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI, FL 33131 IT 305-358-6363
 WHEREFORE, First American respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order

denying the Claims of Exemption and granting Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems

just and appropriate.

VERIFICATION

Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 95.525, under penalties of pe1jury, I declare that I have read the

foregoing Response to Defendants' Claims of Exemption and that the facts stated herein are hue

PY
to the best of my knowledge and belief.

CO
aghan Murph
Counsel to First American Bank

D
IE
IF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY that the foregoing document has been furnished to all registered users via the
RT

Florida Courts e-Filing Portal on August 22, 2022.

CE

ls/Meaghan E. Murphy
Meaghan E. Murphy, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 102770
A

mmurphy@melandbudwick.com
MELAND BUDWICK, P.A.
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200
T

Miami, Florida 33131

O

T elephone: (305) 358-6363

Facsimile: (305) 358-1221
N

Counsel for Plaintiff

Email Designation per Fla. R. Jud.

Admin 2.516
mmurphy@mel andbudwick .com
mramos@me landbudwick.com
mrbstate@yahoo.com

MELAND I BUDW ICK

3200 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER I 200 SOUTH B ISCAYNE BOULEVARD I MIAMI. FL 33131 IT 305-358-6363
Filing# 155063161 E-Filed 08/ 10/2022 02:43:00 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15IB

illDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as successor CASE No.: 502016-CA-009292

By merger to Bank of Coral Gables, LLC,

Plaintiff,

V.

PY
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, et al.

CO
Defendant(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I

D
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
D.E. 1021 WRIT OF GARNISHMENT BANK UNITED

HERE COME LAURENCE SCHNEIDER AND STATES THE FOLLOWING

IE
IF
I claim exemptions from garnishment under the following categories as checked:
XX l. H ead of family wages. (You must check a. orb. below.)
RT

a. I provide more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent and have net
earnings of $750 or less per week.
XX b. I provide more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent, have net
CE

earnings of more than $750 per week, but have not agreed in writing to have my wages
garnished.
2. Social Secmity benefits.
3. Supplemental Security Income benefits.
A

4. Public assistance (welfare).

5. Workers' Compensation.
T

6. Unemployment Compensation.
7. Veterans' benefits.
O

8. Retirement or profit-sharing benefits or pension money.

N

9. Life insurance benefits or cash surrender value of a life insurance policy or proceeds of
annuity contract.
10. Disability income benefits.
11. Prepaid College Trust Fund or Medical Savings Account.
XX 12. Other exemptions as provided by law.
The Account sought to be garnished herein is not subject to garnishment due lo the funds therein derive from
a business wherein the ownership is held in TBE by both Stephanie and Laurence Schneider, and the salary or
disbursement funds held in this account are wages and not subject to garnishment.
I request a hearing to decide the validity of my claim. Notice of the hearing should be given to
me at: c/o Marlin G. McCanhy, Esq., McCarthy & Yersel, PLLC, 4929 S.W. 74 th Court, Miami,
FL 33155, mccarthy@myattorneyservices.com and lawclerk@m yattorneyservices.com

T elephone n umber: (305)407-8006

COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT A
 I FURTHllR CllRTIPY UNDllR OATH AND PllNALTY OF PllRJURY thnt the
slnlemwrts-n!ado.ln:lhis.rcmJ.est nre trne to tho bes! ofmy knowledge nnd belief.
€77 =:?=; ;;;:--
Defendant's signnture · ·-·
Date
---- --{- -°\ --
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTYOF t~
\

Swom and subscribed lo befor· e l. .'. •is _ ~-;f(month and year), by (name of person

PY
making statement)

4 -~.....
Notary Publie/D cpn~rk ''------L-t- ·= ~~~~- -.-..._ .._.'4
Pmonally Known OR Pro, ccd Ucnlilicnlion__ ANot ary Public s 1818 of Florida
Type ofldentificationProduccd

CO
Martin G. McCat1h
MyHCommlssfon Y
H 253752
Exp, 412312026

D
IE
IF
RT
CE
A
T
O
N

5
Filing# 155063161 E-Filed 08/ 10/2022 02:43:00 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15IB

illDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as successor CASE No.: 502016-CA-009292

By merger to Bank of Coral Gables, LLC,

Plaintiff,

V.

PY
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, et al.

CO
Defendant(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I

D
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
D.E. 1021 WRIT OF GARNISHMENT BANK UNITED

HERE COME STEPHANIE SCHNEIDER AND STATES THE FOLLOWING

IE
IF
I claim exemptions from garnishment under the following categories as checked:
XX l. H ead of family wages. (You must check a. orb. below.)
RT

a. I provide more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent and have net
earnings of $750 or less per week.
XX b. I provide more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent, have net
CE

earnings of more than $750 per week, but have not agreed in writing to have my wages
garnished.
2. Social Secmity benefits.
3. Supplemental Security Income benefits.
A

4. Public assistance (welfare).

5. Workers' Compensation.
T

6. Unemployment Compensation.
7. Veterans' benefits.
O

8. Retirement or profit-sharing benefits or pension money.

N

9. Life insurance benefits or cash surrender value of a life insurance policy or proceeds of
annuity contract.
10. Disability income benefits.
11. Prepaid College Trust Fund or Medical Savings Account.
XX 12. Other exemptions as provided by law.
The Account sought to be garnished herein is not subject to garnishment due lo the funds therein derive from
a business wherein the ownership is held in TBE by both Stephanie and Laurence Schneider, and the salary or
disbursement funds held in this account are wages and not subject to garnishment.
I request a hearing to decide the validity of my claim. Notice of the hearing should be given to
me at: c/o Marlin G. McCanhy, Esq., McCarthy & Yersel, PLLC, 4929 S.W. 74 th Court, Miami,
FL 33155, mccarthy@myattorneyservices.com and lawclerk@m yattorneyservices.com

T elephone n umber: (305)407-8006

 \

I FURTHER CERTIFY UNDER OAT

H AND PENALTY OF PERJURY lhnt
slat me ts made Ju this requcpt are true lo the
the best ofmy knowledge and belief.
·"' . ,, 1/
Defc!!,_~•p~s signature
Da toQ Uu l:= --4 1«. 3}. ->< .--- ----
-
STATE OF FLORIDA 1r-\
COUNTY OF
I

PY
Swam and subscribed lo before me this
ay f (monlb and yea1), by (name of pers
making slatcment) on
Nolal)' Public/Deputy ~rk

CO
Personally Kn ow n+ OR Produced I
Type ofldentification Produced.__ _ Notary Public state of Florlda
~--1-~-
itt,_ Martin G. t,icc arth y
_---.. My comm,sslon
, WlllhfImm HH 253752
Exp . 4/23/2026

D
IE
IF
RT
CE
A
T
O
N

5
Filing# 155063161 E-Filed 08/ 10/2022 02:43:00 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15IB

illDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

FIRST AMERICAN BANK, as successor CASE No.: 502016-CA-009292

By merger to Bank of Coral Gables, LLC,

Plaintiff,

V.

PY
LAURENCE S. SCHNEIDER,
STEPHANIE L. SCHNEIDER, et al.

CO
Defendant(s).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I

D
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
D.E. 1022 WRIT OF GARNISHMENT FIRST HORIZON'S BANK

HERE COME BOTH LAURENCE AND STEPHANIE SCHNEIDER AND STATE

IE
IF
THE FOLLOWING
I claim exemptions from garnishment under the following categories as checked:
RT

XX 1. Head of family wages. (You must check a. orb. below.)

a. I provide more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent and have net
earnings of $750 or less per week.
CE

XX b. I provide more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent, have net
earnings of more than $750 per week, but have not agreed i.n writing to have my wages
garnished.
2. Social Security benefits.
A

3. Supplemental Secu1ity Income benefits.

4. Public assistance (welfare).
T

5. Workers' Compensation.
6. Unemployment Compensation.
O

7. Veterans' benefits.
N

8. Retirement or profit-sharing benefits or pension money.

9. Life insurance benefits or cash surrender value of a life insurance policy or proceeds of
annuity contract.
I0. Disability income benefits.
11. Prepaid College Trust Fund or Medical Savings Account.
XX 12. Other exemptions as provided by law.
Their Account sought to be garnished herein is titled as "Tenants by the Entireties property" which is titled
"per tout," and therefore is NOT subject to garnishment by any individual creditor of the Spouses.
I request a bearing lo decide the validity of my claim. Notice of the bearing should be given to
me at: c/o Martin G. McCarthy, Esq., McCarthy & Yersel, PLLC, 4929 S.W. 74th Court, Miami,
FL 33155, mccarthy@myattorneyservices.com and lawclerk@myattomeyservices.com

Telephone number: (305)407-8006

 I FURTHllR CllRTIPY UNDllR OATH AND PllNALTY OF PllRJURY thnt the
slnlemwrts-n!ado.ln:lhis.rcmJ.est nre trne to tho bes! ofmy knowledge nnd belief.
€77 =:?=; ;;;:--
Defendant's signnture · ·-·
Date
---- --{- -°\ --
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTYOF t~
\

Swom and subscribed lo befor· e l. .'. •is _ ~-;f(month and year), by (name of person

PY
making statement)

4 -~.....
Notary Publie/D cpn~rk ''------L-t- ·= ~~~~- -.-..._ .._.'4
Pmonally Known OR Pro, ccd Ucnlilicnlion__ ANot ary Public s 1818 of Florida
Type ofldentificationProduccd

CO
Martin G. McCat1h
MyHCommlssfon Y
H 253752
Exp, 412312026

D
IE
IF
RT
CE
A
T
O
N

5
 \

I FURTHER CERTIFY UNDER OAT

H AND PENALTY OF PERJURY lhnt
slat me ts made Ju this requcpt are true lo the
the best ofmy knowledge and belief.
·"' . ,, 1/
Defc!!,_~•p~s signature
Da toQ Uu l:= --4 1«. 3}. ->< .--- ----
-
STATE OF FLORIDA 1r-\
COUNTY OF
I

PY
Swam and subscribed lo before me this
ay f (monlb and yea1), by (name of pers
making slatcment) on
Nolal)' Public/Deputy ~rk

CO
Personally Kn ow n+ OR Produced I
Type ofldentification Produced.__ _ Notary Public state of Florlda
~--1-~-
itt,_ Martin G. t,icc arth y
_---.. My comm,sslon
, WlllhfImm HH 253752
Exp . 4/23/2026

D
IE
IF
RT
CE
A
T
O
N