Articles Posted in Alimony

Published on: | by

It may sound surprising, but there are some instances when a party to a family law case in Florida may lose his right to have an appeal of his case even considered. That was the case recently for one Palm Beach County husband, when the 4th District Court of Appeal ordered a dismissal of his appeal of a contempt finding unless the husband achieved “substantial compliance” with the trial court’s support orders within 30 days.

The couple, Michel Whissell and Sheronne Whisell, sought a divorce in Palm Beach County. As part of that case, the trial court ordered the husband to make temporary support payments to the wife. The husband, however, did not make these support payments. On multiple occasions, the wife initiated contempt proceedings. Eventually, the husband racked up multiple contempt findings and a support arrearage in excess of $100,000.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The law regarding alimony contains several nuances. One of these is a statutory rule that says that the amount of evidence a spouse must offer in order to obtain permanent alimony differs based upon how long the couple was married. This rule recently led to the reversal of a Tampa court’s decision to deny a wife permanent alimony, since the 2d District Court of Appeal concluded that the lower court denied the wife’s permanent alimony request based upon the wrong standard of proof.

In Irene and Randy Banks’ case, theirs was a long-term marriage, having wedded before NASA launched the first space shuttle or the University of Miami won its first national football championship. The couple separated in 2011, with the wife filing for divorce shortly before the year’s end. At the time of their divorce, the husband made $90,000 a year and received a military pension that paid him almost $2,300 per month. The wife was unemployed but, in the trial court’s opinion, had a ability to earn $25,000 per year.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A Florida trial court’s award of alimony to a wife was thrown out recently by the 2d District Court of Appeal for being too low. The appeals court concluded that the trial court’s outcome, if put into action, would leave too great a disparity between the ex-spouses and would force the wife into a lifestyle below that which she enjoyed during the couple’s marriage.

A couple decided to end their 28-year marriage in 2011. Although the wife had a master’s degree and had been the primary earner through much of the marriage, her job at the time of the divorce paid only $29,000 annually. The husband was making $280,000 per year by 2011.
Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

When faced with the possibility of awarding alimony, courts have a variety of options. The appropriate option may depend on various factors, including how long you were married. Whether you are the spouse paying alimony or the one receiving alimony, it is very important to understand what the law does (and does not) allow courts to do when it comes to an alimony award. Two Florida appeals court decisions from this year serve as examples of these limitations.

In a very recent decision, Diaz v. Diaz, the 3d District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of a husband’s appeal and overturned a trial court’s ruling with regard to the husband’s payment of alimony. The trial court in that case ordered the husband to pay the wife durational (temporary) alimony each month for 48 months. The flaw with this award was that the couple’s marriage had only lasted for a little more than three years (40 months.) Section 61.08(7) of the Florida Statutes says that durational alimony “may not be modified except under exceptional circumstances and may not exceed the length of the marriage.”
Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Sometimes, courts decide to award alimony to one spouse in a divorce based on that spouse having a much smaller income than the other spouse. The 2d District Court of Appeal received a case like this and reversed the trial court’s ruling requiring the husband to pay alimony. That’s because evidence of income disparity alone is not enough to justify an alimony award. The law requires proof of the recipient spouse’s need and the payor spouse’s ability to pay. The evidence in the case showed the husband did not have the ability to pay, so awarding alimony was erroneous.

M’s family law case was one similar to many people’s situations. While married, M and his now-former wife, T, had a child. They also reportedly racked up a considerable amount of debt, including credit card balances exceeding $10,000. Eventually, the couple decided to dissolve their marriage. By the time they split up, each spouse was  in a very problematic financial state, since each had debt obligations allegedly exceeding their incomes.
Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Parties in divorce cases will, in many instances, submit proposed final orders to the trial judge. A recent 5th District Court of Appeal ruling serves as a reminder that, although these submissions are permissible and often helpful to trial judges, courts should be hesitant to adopt them in their entirety when the opposing side has no opportunity to comment or object. Additionally, parties are not entitled to forms of relief they didn’t ask for in their petitions, even if they raised the issues in their pre-trial documents.

The recent case involved CC’s filing for divorce from her husband, DC. The wife’s petition asked the court to dissolve the marriage, create a time sharing schedule for the couple’s child, award child support, and distribute the couple’s assets and liabilities.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

There are many reasons a divorcing spouse might sign off on a marital settlement agreement when one or more terms are less favorable than what that spouse would receive if the agreement followed the Florida Statutes. Whatever the reasons, a person in such a situation should be extremely careful when signing such an agreement because, as long as the language in the document is clear, courts will follow the agreement’s terms, as one recent 2d District Court of Appeal case demonstrates.

The case arose from the divorce of a Florida couple. After mediation, the couple came to terms on a marital settlement agreement. In that document, the husband agreed to pay the wife $4,500 per month in alimony. The alimony paragraph stated that the amount was non-modifiable and payable for the life of the wife.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Alimony can serve as an important lifeline, especially for divorcing spouses who subsist on fixed incomes. A recent 5th District Court of Appeal ruling highlights the basic concept of alimony law in Florida, saying that alimony must be large enough to allow the recipient spouse to meet her living expenses without having to spend her assets just to pay her monthly bills. In the 5th DCA’s recent decision, it sent a divorce case back to the trial court after deciding that the alimony imposed on the husband would not be enough to meet the wife’s monthly expenses.

The divorce in question regarded the 12-year marriage of a Florida couple. The couple achieved a partial settlement agreement of their financial affairs through mediation. The agreement called for the husband to refinance the marital residence and give the wife $4,000 from the proceeds of that transaction.

On the matter of alimony, the couple could not agree. The wife put forth evidence to the trial court that she was disabled and unable to work, and that she received $1,189 per month in disability payments as her sole source of income. She also testified that, in order to secure a home comparable to the marital residence, she would have to pay approximately $850 per month. The trial judge ultimately awarded the wife bridge-the-gap alimony of $300 a month for two years. The judge, in arriving at these numbers, expressly factored in the $4,000 the wife would receive from the refinance transaction.
Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

A husband’s recent failed attempt to modify his alimony obligation serves as a cautionary tale for all divorcing spouses as they consider signing agreements regarding alimony. The husband sought modification because the wife had been cohabitating with a man for two years. The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that this was not grounds for modification, however, since the couple’s alimony agreement listed remarriage, but not cohabitation, as a valid basis for modifying the husband’s obligation.

When Husband and Wife divorced in 2007 after 17 years of marriage, they reached a marital settlement agreement that included the terms of the husband’s alimony obligation to the wife. The couple agreed that the husband would pay the wife $2,000 per month until he turned 62. The only grounds for modifying that obligation were loss of income due to the failure of the husband’s business, loss of income due to a decline in the husband’s health, the wife’s remarriage, or the death of either spouse.

In 2012, the husband went to court asking the judge to modify or terminate his alimony obligation. The wife, the husband alleged, had been living with a man in a “supportive” relationship that involved sharing wealth and assets for at least two years. The wife asked the judge to throw out the case, arguing that her non-marital relationship did not trigger any of the modification grounds listed in the settlement agreement.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent 4th District Court of Appeal ruling highlighted the complicated issues involved in calculating alimony in a case where the wife, who was previously a successful professional, retired early and did not intend to return to work after the divorce. The appeals court rejected a trial court ruling imputing no income to the wife, determining that, because the wife was qualified for certain jobs and that her continued unemployment was her own choice, the lower court should have imputed some income to the wife in determining the amount of alimony the wife should receive.

When this Florida couple married, he was an attorney for a utility company and she ran a public relations and marketing firm. The husband’s employer laid him off in 2000, but provided him with such a generous severance package that both he and his wife decided to retire early. The husband told the wife that, as a result of the severance payment, neither of them would ever have to work again. After a year of retirement, though, the husband started a consulting business from which he earned a sizable income. The wife remained retired.

When the couple divorced after 17 years of marriage, one of the central items in dispute was alimony and the wife’s earning capacity. An expert witness testified that, with a few short classes in computer software and social media, the wife could obtain a job making $40,000-$50,000 per year. The trial court, though, decided the wife was not qualified for most of the jobs identified by the expert witness, imputed no income to her, and ordered the husband to pay her $11,648 per month in permanent periodic alimony. The court also did not require the wife to return to work.
Continue reading ›