Articles Posted in Alimony

Published on: | by

Deciding the appropriate amount of retroactive support a spouse should receive can be somewhat complex in cases where the couple continues to live together during at least part of the divorce process. In one such recent case involving a veterinarian and his wife, the 5th District Court of Appeal decided that the couple’s long-term marriage entitled the wife to permanent alimony and that the husband should not be allowed to claim the mortgage and household bills he paid during the separation as support to his wife.

This couple divorced after more than 17 years of marriage. The couple continued to live together for part of the period when the divorce was pending, and the husband gave the wife $6,000 per month for support and payment of certain household bills, including the mortgage. The trial court ordered the husband, a veterinarian, to pay durational (temporary) alimony of $3,500 per month for eight years. The court also decided that the husband owed the wife no retroactive alimony.

The wife contested these determinations on appeal. The 5th DCA sided with the wife, ruling that the trial court should have awarded permanent, not temporary, alimony. Florida law requires a trial court to consider primarily what the needs of the spouse seeking alimony are, and the other spouse’s ability to pay. Additionally, the law’s default position is that permanent alimony is the appropriate remedy in cases involving long-term marriages, which the statute defines as ones lasting 17 years or more.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Still motivated after their near-miss in the last session of the Florida Legislature, advocates for an overhaul to the state’s alimony laws are looking to a newly released documentary film to provide additional fuel to their cause. The film, entitled “Divorce Corp.”, allegedly demonstrates many of the excesses and flaws of Florida’s current system of family law and procedure. Proponents of changes to the laws governing alimony hope that the film will inspire the legislature to make another effort at reform, and that the governor will approve this time.

The Miami Herald reported on “Divorce Corp.”, which some theaters advertised as exposing “how children are torn from their homes, unlicensed custody evaluators extort money, and abusive judges play God with people’s lives while enriching their friends,” and its interrelationship with the movement within the state to amend Florida’s alimony laws. Alan Frisher, head of a pro-reform non-profit organization called Family Law Reform, supports the film. Frisher described “Divorce Corp.” as “another way to engage the public.” In addition to screenings of the documentary, Frisher also published a book entitled “Divorcing the System: Exposing the Injustice of Family Law,” and has held summits touting alimony reform.

In its 2013 session, the Florida legislature passed a controversial measure, Senate Bill 718, reforming alimony laws. The bill would have ended permanent alimony and established limits on the amount of alimony a spouse could receive. The changes would have also altered the definitions of short-, moderate- and long-term marriages. For example, the bill stretched the definition of “short-term” marriages from seven years or less to 11 years or less, and stated that the default outcome for short-term marriages is an award of no alimony.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

One variety of estate planning technique used to shield assets from creditors is the use of discretionary trusts, such as so-called “spendthrift trusts.” In a recent ruling by the 2d District Court of Appeal, however, the trusts a former husband created failed to block his ex-wife from collecting the alimony he owed her. The court decided that, although Florida has a public policy favoring the recognition of spendthrift provisions in trusts, it has a stronger policy favoring the protection of spouses through the enforcement of spousal support orders.

When a couple divorced in 2007, after 30 years of marriage, they reached a marital settlement agreement resolving, among other items, alimony. The agreement, which the court ratified, required the husband to pay the wife $16,000 per month. Despite receiving a sizable regular income from a series of discretionary trusts, the husband fell behind on his alimony.

The wife filed motions seeking enforcement of the alimony order, including asking the court to order the garnishment of any distributions from the trusts to the husband. The trustee objected, claiming that the law protected trust assets from all creditors, including the wife. The trial court agreed with the wife and issued the order.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A Third District Court of Appeal case from earlier this month marked a reversal of course for that court with regard to the rules regarding cohabitating couples and alimony modification. In the court’s latest ruling, it decided that, even though an ex-wife received virtually no financial support from her cohabitating boyfriend, a trial court was nevertheless justified in using that relationship as the basis for lowering the ex-husband’s monthly alimony obligation.

The case centered upon the aftermath of a divorce following which the ex-husband had paid his ex-wife alimony since the couple’s divorce in 2005. In 2009, the ex-wife boyfriend moved in with her. The ex-husband sought to reduce his alimony based upon the cohabitation relationship, and the trial court dropped his alimony obligation from $4,200 per month to $3,500.

The ex-wife appealed. The Third DCA originally agreed with the wife, but reconsidered its opinion and upheld the trial court ruling. The court ultimately decided that the statutes were clear in allowing the trial court to make the reduction based upon the change in circumstances brought about by the cohabitation.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, an ex-spouse can request a legal modification of alimony. In a recent case, a couple had divorced after 28 years of marriage. On an appeal of the divorce judgment, the court reduced the husband’s alimony payments. In 2010, about a decade after the divorce, the former husband filed a petition requesting a reduction or termination of the payments, which were then $6,000 per month.

He argued that an order requiring him to pay permanent periodic alimony payments should be modified because (1) his financial circumstances had changed significantly and (2) his former wife was in a relationship with someone supportive. The former wife denied the material facts underlying the petition.

A general magistrate made a recommended order, finding a substantial change of circumstances since the husband’s income had been reduced. In his findings, he noted that he did not think this change was contemplated at the time of divorce and that the former wife was in a committed relationship. He recommended the alimony payments be reduced significantly, down to $1,294.06 per month.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Changes may be coming soon to Florida alimony law and the effects may retroactively extend to cases settled years ago. If a bill recently vetoed by Florida Governor Rick Scott is reintroduced for the 2014 legislative session, it will spark another long fight over how Florida’s “permanent alimony” system is enacted. Proponents of the bill include the “Florida Women for Alimony Reform” and “Family Law Reform”. They are supported by elected officials in the Florida House of Representatives like Representative Ritch Workman (Republican -Melbourne) who claim current laws have lead to situations “where alimony was used as a weapon by the judge to punish the person that they thought was wrong in the divorce,” an improper practice, considering Florida is a “no fault state”. A “no-fault” divorce means that specific grounds are not needed for divorce proceedings to be initiated, only that a marriage is “irretrievably broken” or there is a “mental incapacity” on the part of one of the parties in a marriage. These supporters of the bill believe current law in Florida allows for too much abuse and misinterpretation on the part of the courts.Although the bill passed the Florida House and Senate, Governor Rick Scott vetoed the bill, stating as his reason that the bill would retroactively affect past court decisions that granted alimony. Others have speculated that there is more to the veto, as a plan to pass a retooled version of the legislation that eliminated the bill’s effect on prior court decisions was not met with any response and text messages reported to have been sent between the State Senate President’s chief of staff and State Senator Tom Lee (Republican -Brandon) guess that the decision “may be larger than just the veto message”.

There are those who believe that the Governor issued the veto in an attempt to distance himself from what some call an “anti-women” reform plan. Despite the anti-woman label, there are women’s groups on both sides of the argument. The “Florida Women for Alimony Reform” claim the bill will be beneficial to the growing number of working women in Florida, while a group known as the “Frist Wives First” say they are trying to protect the many “lifelong caregivers” who rely on alimony checks to live, as they cannot find work after having been out of the workforce for so long.
Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

This blog has previously discussed changes to Florida’s alimony laws (Senate Bill 718). Governor Scott vetoed this bill which included, as well, updates to Florida’s child custody laws.Specifically, child custody schedules were updated. Previously, there was never a codified mandate or guide that the custody break-down be 50/50 with both parents; rather judges just deemed what is right by a scattered amount of standards. Senate Bill 718 codifies a presumption that there be a 50/50 time sharing agreement between parents as, according to the legislature, it “is in the best interest of the child”. The bill does provide for basic and necessary exceptions or considerations to this presumption however.

Some of these considerations include: physical, mental and emotional safety of the child; distance makes the sharing too burdensome; a court order has prevented contact with one parent; a parent is incarcerated; domestic violence has occurred; clear evidence that extenuating circumstances require a modification of the schedule; or a parent does not wish to retain his/her level of custody.

Govenor Scott has admitted he does approve of “several forward looking elements of this bill” but he recognizes the importance alimony plays to many households. Currently, only four states have ended permanent alimony. Gov. Scott further criticized the Florida bill for its retroactive application which damaged ideas of fairness and “could result in unfair, unanticipated results.”

No Custody for Rapists

This April, the Florida legislature approved another more specific child custody bill which has been long overdue. The bill, SB 964, would prohibit a convicted rapist from acquiring child custody rights over the child conceived from the attack. The Florida House unanimously passed SB 964 with a vote of 115-0. The bill will be going to Governor Rick Scott and will take effect upon his expected signature.

A staff report in support of the bill reported that only 19 states terminate parental rights of convicted rapist for any child conceived through their crime. Now, with Florida having passed the bill, a startling 30 states (as well as the District of Columbia) remain which have no law on the books that bars a rapist from seeking visitation or custody rights. These states are as follows: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Previously, rapists could seek custody of the child born from their attack. In some cases, this can even be used as a backdoor bargaining chip to discourage the victim from reporting the incident, testifying, or participating in sentencing hearings.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Alimony, otherwise known as maintenance or spousal support, has long been a pillar of social and economic stability for individuals reorganizing their life after a divorce. A bill intended to reform Florida’s alimony laws, known as HB231, has just passed its first subcommittee in the Florida House in a 10-2 vote and is now headed the House Judiciary Committee to be decided in the next several weeks. The HB231 bill’s purpose is to limit the extent of alimony, both the amount and the duration.

Alan Frischer, of Florida Alimony Reform, created the bill in hopes of updating what the group sees as Florida’s “archaic” alimony system. The bill’s sponsor, Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, hopes this bill will allow someone who has gone through a divorce the ability to “move on with their life” without forever being tied to excessive payments. During the subcommittees hearings, several victims of the current “archaic” alimony system were brought in to explain their plight. The individuals included one divorced man who claimed about half of his salary went solely to alimony.Opponents of the current reform bill cited the important role alimony plays in many people’s lives, especially newly single parents. Many spouses develop a skill set, lifestyle, and spending budget based on the couple’s income. When the marriage ends the spouse who contributed to the household but has not developed professionally could be left in severe need; unable to pay bills based on the previous income. In most instances, this disadvantaged spouse is the woman which has led to critics, such as Rep. Cynthia Stafford, D-Miami, to call this reform “anti-woman”.

One of the basic most tangible tenets of HB231 is that it would limit the extent of alimony to 50% of the duration of the marriage. In other words, a 20 year marriage could lead to only 10 years of alimony. A divorcing partner could seek an extension of this time, which will be known as durational alimony, with only “clear and convincing evidence that exceptional circumstances justify the need for a longer award of alimony.” In order to make such a showing, one should contact a qualified Florida family law attorney.
Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

A movement to reform Florida’s alimony laws that began about ten years ago is reportedly beginning to gain momentum. Although the movement was initially primarily composed of divorced men, an increasing number of women are allegedly in favor of amending permanent alimony laws in the State of Florida. With divorce rates hovering near 50 percent, the increase in female support reportedly comes from second wives whose husbands are paying permanent alimony to their former spouse. Others are purportedly women who have refused to marry in order to keep their earnings from being used to recalculate a permanent alimony award.

According to Alan Frisher, Spokesperson and Co-Director for Florida Alimony Reform, although a number of changes were made to state alimony laws in recent years, they were not sufficient. Frisher, who has paid his former spouse permanent alimony for nearly ten years, stated most of the alimony laws currently in place in Florida were created in the 1950s. He believes they need to be reformed because societal shifts have fundamentally changed the economics of marriage. Frisher also said the goal of his organization is to educate legislators regarding the unfairness of current permanent alimony statutes.

Some feel that Florida’s current alimony laws discourage former spouses from becoming self-sufficient. It also reportedly creates lifetime financial ties between individuals who chose to end their marriage. When a Florida alimony payer remarries, a judge may increase his or her former spouse’s support award based on a perceived decrease in personal expenses. Florida Alimony Reform reportedly seeks an end to permanent alimony in favor of a fixed-term or long-term durational award system that would end once the payer reaches the age of retirement.

In most Florida divorce cases, some sort of alimony is awarded to the spouse who was the lower wage-earner. The idea behind a spousal support order is to provide a former spouse with additional income as he or she makes the transition to self-sufficiency. Most alimony awards are reportedly paid for a limited term based upon the length of a couple’s marriage. The concept of permanent alimony in the state was allegedly designed to protect a parent who stayed home with the children in lieu of working. Permanent and other alimony awards may be terminated if a payee remarries or cohabits in a marital-type relationship.

In Florida, a court may award spousal support where there is a need on the part of the alimony recipient and an ability to pay on the part of his or her former spouse. Normally, a needs assessment is conducted prior to any spousal support order. A needs assessment will examine the distribution of marital assets and the former couple’s standard of living before the marriage ended. In general, a Florida court will not award spousal support where the potential alimony recipient has the ability to maintain the same standard of living following the distribution of all marital assets. A competent family lawyer can explain the process in more detail.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal has reversed a lower court’s order to reduce a former wife’s alimony award and deny her attorney’s fees based upon her financial support of a man who resides with her. In this case, the Circuit Court for Monroe County granted the man’s petition to reduce his alimony payments to his former wife after the court determined that she had entered into a “supportive relationship” with another man as defined by Florida Statute Section 61.14(1)(b). The statute allows for a court to decrease or eliminate an alimony award where a former spouse resides with someone who provides them with some level of support. Despite that the couple were married for more than 25 years and the lower court found that the wife received no financial support from her cohabitant, the lower court reduced her alimony award from a monthly payment of $4,200 to $3,500.

First, the Third District analyzed the statute at issue in the case. The court stated that although the statute failed to define a “supportive relationship,” it listed 11 factors to be considered by a court when determining whether such a relationship exists. According to the appellate court, nine of those factors are economic in nature. The court also found that the Florida Legislature clearly chose to focus on the economic impact of cohabitation rather than the act of residing with a new partner when it established Section 61.14(1)(b).

Next, the Third District looked to the holding of Florida’s First District Court of Appeal in Overton v. Overton. There, the appellate court found the type of relationship described in the statute “takes the financial place of a marriage and necessarily decreases the need of the obligee.” Additionally, the Third District looked to the Fourth District’s holding in Linstroth v. Dorgan which stated a “supportive relationship” as contemplated in the statute is “a relationship that provides the economic support equivalent to a marriage.”

According to the Third District, the question at issue in the case was whether a “supportive relationship” could exist when a court also determined an alimony recipient did not receive financial support from the individual with whom she was residing. The appellate court said although the wife was providing financial support to her cohabitant, her relationship did not qualify as supportive under the statute because her economic needs were not reduced by her living arrangement. Finally, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal held that a supportive relationship could not exist where no financial support was received by an alimony recipient. The Third District reversed the lower court’s order to reduce the wife’s monthly alimony award and reversed the lower court’s denial of her reasonable attorney’s fees.

In the State of Florida, a court may award alimony where there is a need on the part of the alimony recipient and an ability to pay on the part of the alimony payor. A needs assessment is normally performed to examine the distribution of marital assets as well as the former couple’s standard of living prior to the end of their marriage. Although many factors are examined when making an award of spousal support, a Florida court generally will not award alimony if the potential recipient has the ability to maintain the same standard of living after all assets are distributed.
Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated: