Separation of Assets in Florida

Social security payments are exempt from a creditor's process. The commingling of non-exempt deposit with an exempt asset will not automatically cause the exempt portion to lose the exempt status. Beardsley v. Admiral Ins. Co., 647 So. 2d 327, 329 (3d DCA Fla. 1994). The debtor has the burden of proof to trace and properly identify amounts exempt from collection. Beardsley, 647 So. 2d at 329. Where a bank account contains commingled assets, the court will examine the account balance and exempt the portion that is traceable as exempt. Parl v. Parl, 699 So. 2d 765, 767 (4th DCA Fla. 1997). No exemption will lie if the court cannot separate out exempt from non-exempt funds. Beardsley, at 329.

In Parl v. Parl, appellant garnished appellee's bank account to satisfy a judgment for unpaid alimony. Parl, 699 So. 2d at 766. Appellee's bank account contained both exempt and non-exempt assets. Id., at 767. The Fourth District held that the disability benefits in the account were exempt, while garnishment was proper as to any other funds in the account. Id. Accordingly, the Fourth District ordered the trial court to exempt the portion in the bank account that were traceable as disability benefits. Id. Note where debtor fails to prove and trace exempt assets in a commingled bank account, no exemption will lie. In re Parker, 147 B.R. 810, 813 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992). In In re Parker, the debtor's bank account contained both payroll checks (exempt) and expense reimbursements from his employer (non-exempt). In re Parker, 147 B.R. at 813. Additionally, debtor made various withdrawals from the account. The court rejected debtor's claim for exemption because it was impossible to separate out exempt from non-exempt assets, given that the debtor made various withdrawals. Id.