Case Name: Charlotte GOLDSTEIN f/k/a Charlotte Ginsberg, Appellant, v. Burton GINSBERG, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-06-02
Citations: 399 So. 2d 415
Docket Number: No. 80-2323
Parties: Charlotte GOLDSTEIN f/k/a Charlotte Ginsberg, Appellant, v. Burton GINSBERG, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 399
Pages: 415–415

Head Matter:
Charlotte GOLDSTEIN f/k/a Charlotte Ginsberg, Appellant, v. Burton GINSBERG, Appellee.
No. 80-2323.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 2, 1981.
Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Li-poff, Quentel & Wolff and Kendall B. Coffey, Miami, for appellant.
Ginsberg & Goldman and Daniel Ginsberg, N. Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, in 1960, recovered a final judgment covering a number of items, including periodic alimony. The appellee's continuing duty to make periodic alimony payments ceased in 1965.
In 1980, the appellant sought a continuing writ of garnishment, pursuant to Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes (1979). The trial court refused to issue a continuing writ of garnishment, and this appeal ensued. We affirm.
There did not appear to be any evidence of a current continuing order to make periodic alimony or support payments in the record before the trial court; to the contrary, the evidence indicated that all such periodic payment orders had ceased. We therefore find that the trial court was eminently correct in not permitting the appellant to secure the issuance of a continuing writ of garnishment directed to the judgment debtor's employer. See and compare: Schwarz v. Waddell, 389 So.2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Affirmed.