Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

In Sootin v. Sootin, the former husband and former wife divorced in Miami-Dade in 1998. The former husband was obliged to pay the former wife permanent alimony. During 2008, the former husband sought to modify or terminate his alimony obligation. The former wife successfully moved to dismiss the petition since she now resided in Tennessee.

Next, the former husband moved to Tennessee and filed a petition to register and modify the divorce decree previously entered in Miami-Dade. After the former wife moved to dismiss the petition for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in Tennessee, the Miami-Dade court, after consultation with the Tennessee Court, transfered the case to Tennessee. The former wife appealed this order.

In reversing the trial court's transfer order, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the Miami divorce court erred in transferring the case to Tennessee. The court reasoned that Florida, under the Unified Interstate Family Support Act (hereinafter "UIFSA"), had continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the alimony order throughout the existence of the obligation.

Under UIFSA, a child support or alimony order issued in Florida can be registered in a foreign state for enforcement. However, the court of the foreign state is required to ask the court who issued the original order to consider either party's request for modification of the registered alimony or child support order in the issuing court that had original jurisdiction.

During a Broward divorce, your Fort Lauderdale divorce lawyer may request that you be awarded alimony. A Florida marital and family court can award you bridge-the-gap, temporary, lump sum, rehabilitative or permanent periodic alimony. However, after the conclusion of your Broward divorce case, one spouse may have their Broward child support, child custody and divorce attorney ask the judge to reduce or terminate the alimony because of a statutorily created supportive relationship.

In determining whether an existing award of alimony should be reduced or terminated because of an alleged supportive relationship between an obligee and a person who is not related by consanguinity or affinity and with whom the obligee resides, the court shall elicit the nature and extent of the relationship in question. The court shall give consideration, without limitation, to circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following, in determining the relationship of an obligee to another person: the extent to which the obligee and the other person have held themselves out as a married couple by engaging in conduct such as using the same last name, using a common mailing address, referring to each other in terms such as "my husband" or "my wife," or otherwise conducting themselves in a manner that evidences a permanent supportive relationship; the period of time that the obligee has resided with the other person in a permanent place of abode; the extent to which the obligee and the other person have pooled their assets or income or otherwise exhibited financial interdependence; the extent to which the obligee or the other person has supported the other, in whole or in part; the extent to which the obligee or the other person has performed valuable services for the other; the extent to which the obligee or the other person has performed valuable services for the other's company or employer; whether the obligee and the other person have worked together to create or enhance anything of value; whether the obligee and the other person have jointly contributed to the purchase of any real or personal property; evidence in support of a claim that the obligee and the other person have an express agreement regarding property sharing or support; evidence in support of a claim that the obligee and the other person have an implied agreement regarding property sharing or support and whether the obligee and the other person have provided support to the children of one another, regardless of any legal duty to do so.

In Baumann v Baumann, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the decision of a Florida divorce court that reduced the former husband's alimony obligation to the Former Wife. The former husband was required to pay the former wife $1800 per month in permanent periodic alimony. In 2007, the former husband petitioned the Florida marital and family law court to reduce or terminate his alimony obligation since the Former Wife was involved in a supportive relationship.

At the trial, the trial court found that the former husband had proven that the former wife was in a supportive relationship and was receiving $1400 per month from her supporting partner. Accordingly, the former husband's alimony obligation was reduced to $400 per month. However, following a hearing on the former wife's motion for rehearing the trial court acknowledged the existence of a supportive relationship but found that the Former Husband did not meet his burden in proving that the Former Wife's need for alimony decreased as a result of the supportive relationship and required him to continue to pay the former wife $1800 per month in permanent periodic alimony.

In reversing the decision of the Florida divorce court, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the trial court improperly placed the burden of proving a reduction of the former wife's need for alimony on the former husband. The court reasoned that the burden was on the former wife to establish that her original financial need continues to exist despite the supportive relationship after the former husband proved its existence.

What happens if the Fort Lauderdale divorce judge has ordered you to make alimony or child support payments and you no longer can pay the amount? Do not neglect your payment obligation. Go back to the Broward County divorce court and file a petition for a downward modification of your child support and/or alimony. Whether you are paying child support or temporary, rehabilitative or permanent alimony, if you stop making payments, the marital and family law judge in Fort Lauderdale may hold you in contempt of court which means you could end up behind bars at the Broward County jail.

With the economy the way it is today, a number of spouses are finding it exceedingly difficult to make their payments. If you are the payor spouse and you are making less money than you were at the time of your support determination, you may have legal grounds to petition the court for a downward modification. If you are the receiving spouse it is wise to draft a new agreement with your ex detailing the percentage of downward modification and the length of time this modification will be in effect. Both parties should consult their attorneys and come up with a modification agreement so that the children and the parents are financially stable.

The statutory grounds for modification of alimony are found in section 61.14(1) of the Florida Statutes. When the parties enter into an agreement or the court orders alimony payments, and sometime later the financial ability or the circumstances change then either spouse may request the court for modification of alimony or child support payments. The party who petitions for a change in alimony must show that a substantial change has occurred. Showing a reduction in the payor's income alone will not justify modification. The change must be involuntary and there must be no other funds in the payor spouse's possession that could be used to keep current with the alimony obligation

The statutory grounds for modification of child support and alimony are found in section 61.13(1)(a) and section 61.14(1) of the Florida Statutes. Either party may apply for modification of the court-ordered or agreed to child support award whenever the financial circumstances of either party changes substantially or the child, who is a beneficiary of the agreement or court order, reaches majority. The party who petitions for downward modification of child support must be prepared to prove that a substantial change in the circumstances has occurred. "Substantial" means significant, involuntary and permanent.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida divorce Judge Arthur Birken ruled that Palm Beach Circuit Judge David French should not have to pay his former wife $3,400.00 a month in permanent alimony because she has been living with another man for nearly 20 years. Judge Birken also ordered the former wife to repay $151,000.00 that she received in alimony since August 2006.

Judge David French was divorced from his former wife in 1988. In 2006, Judge French requested that his alimony obligation be abated after the Florida Legislature enacted Florida Statute 61.14(b) which permits modification or termination of alimony to recipients living in a supportive relationship. The trial court denied this request in August 2006.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's August 2006 ruling and found that the former wife was in a supportive relationship and should not continue to receive alimony from Judge French

According to Florida Statute, 61.14 (b)(2), in determining whether an existing award of alimony should be reduced or terminated because of an alleged supportive relationship between an obligee and a person who is not related by consanguinity or affinity and with whom the obligee resides, the court shall elicit the nature and extent of the relationship in question. The court shall give consideration, without limitation, to circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following, in determining the relationship of an obligee to another person:

a. The extent to which the obligee and the other person have held themselves out as a married couple by engaging in conduct such as using the same last name, using a common mailing address, referring to each other in terms such as "my husband" or "my wife," or otherwise conducting themselves in a manner that evidences a permanent supportive relationship.

b. The period of time that the obligee has resided with the other person in a permanent place of abode.

c. The extent to which the obligee and the other person have pooled their assets or income or otherwise exhibited financial interdependence.

d. The extent to which the obligee or the other person has supported the other, in whole or in part.

e. The extent to which the obligee or the other person has performed valuable services for the other.

f. The extent to which the obligee or the other person has performed valuable services for the other's company or employer.

g. Whether the obligee and the other person have worked together to create or enhance anything of value.

h. Whether the obligee and the other person have jointly contributed to the purchase of any real or personal property.

i. Evidence in support of a claim that the obligee and the other person have an express agreement regarding property sharing or support.

j. Evidence in support of a claim that the obligee and the other person have an implied agreement regarding property sharing or support.

k. Whether the obligee and the other person have provided support to the children of one another, regardless of any legal duty to do so.