Articles Posted in Divorce

Published on: | by

One of the more frustrating turns of events for individuals ordered to pay alimony is the discovery that the ex-spouse to whom they are making support payments has moved in with a boyfriend or girlfriend. In some situations, your ex-spouse’s decision to cohabitate with another person may be valid grounds for modifying or terminating your alimony payments. Whether you succeed in obtaining a modification or termination of your obligation depends largely on the facts of your ex-spouse’s new relationship and, in some cases, which terms you put in your marital settlement agreement. As a recent Central Florida case illustrates, even if you succeed, it is important to keep in mind that there are limits to what the law can do for you.

One way to succeed is to prove that your ex is involved in a “supportive relationship,” as defined by Florida Statutes Section 61.14. That’s what happened in a recent Volusia County case. The ex-husband went to court alleging that his ex-wife, to whom he paid alimony, had entered into a supportive relationship under the statute and that he should be entitled not only to a termination of his obligation to make future alimony payments, but also to have his obligation retroactively terminated going all the way to the date that the ex-wife moved in with her partner. The ex-husband succeeded in proving the existence of a supportive relationship involving the ex-wife, and the trial court retroactively terminated her alimony as the husband had requested.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A North Florida trial court’s decision to award an ex-wife only enough alimony to cover her insurance expenses was recently thrown out by the 1st District Court of Appeal as not proper under the requirements of the Florida Statutes. In this wife’s case, failing to award enough alimony to cover her shelter and medications required reversal. The ruling reminds those involved in divorce matters that the law demands consideration of all of the recipient’s necessities as established during the couple’s marriage, and it also serves a clear warning of the potential risks of proceeding without legal counsel.

The couple, J.R. (husband) and T.R. (wife) from Clay County, recently divorced after a long-term marriage. The husband had an income of more than $78,000 per year. The wife, who did not have a high-school degree, had an annual income of less than $16,500. When the trial court came to address the issue of alimony, the judge concluded that the wife’s needs consisted only of her insurance, including both auto and health. The cost for these expenses was $600 per month, so the trial court awarded the wife $600 monthly in permanent alimony.

Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

An ex-husband who failed to make payments to his ex-wife, even though he was financially able, was nevertheless able to escape being slammed with contempt of court. The 5th District Court of Appeal overturned a trial court decision that found the man in contempt, ruling that the payments were part of the equitable distribution in the couple’s divorce and that contempt cannot be used to enforce equitable distribution payments.

When J.L. (husband) and A.L. (wife) decided to divorce, the trial court divided up several assets, including the retirement benefits of the husband, who was a state employee. The trial court awarded the wife 50% of the marital portion of the husband’s state retirement. Unfortunately for everyone, however, things did not go as planned. Before the husband could retire, he suffered an injury at work. Instead of receiving retirement benefits, the husband began collecting permanent disability benefits.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A Central Florida wife will receive a second chance to make her case for an award of alimony, thanks to a recent decision issued by the 5th District Court of Appeal. The appeals court threw out an Osceola County trial court ruling that had given the wife zero alimony. One of the key errors that led to this reversal was the trial court’s conclusion that the couple’s marriage was one of “moderate” duration, despite the fact that the spouses had been married for more than 17 years when the husband filed for divorce.

In this case, Mr. J.Q. (husband) filed for divorce from his wife, Ms. J.Q. (wife), shortly after the couple’s 17th wedding anniversary. The couple’s divorce trial, though, did not take place until six years later. When the trial court issued its ruling, the judge stated that, taking into consideration each spouse’s relative income along with the fact that the couple’s was a marriage of moderate duration, the wife was not entitled to receive alimony.

Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

A husband from the Gainesville area succeeded in appealing a divorce judgment entered by a trial court in Hillsborough County. The 2d District Court of Appeal ruled that the only criterion for determining venue that applied to the couple’s case was the residence of the husband. Since he undisputedly lived in Alachua County, that meant that Alachua County, not Hillsborough County, was the proper venue for the case.

In early 2013, M.V. (wife) desired to end her marriage to J.V. (husband). She filed for divorce in Tampa. The husband lived near Gainesville. He asked the trial court in Tampa to transfer the case to Gainesville, but the court refused and entered an order dissolving the marriage. The husband appealed and won, which nullified the divorce judgment that the court in Tampa had entered. The 2d DCA threw out the divorce on the basis that the trial court in Hillsborough County should have granted the husband’s request to move the case to Alachua County.

Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

A wife fighting to avoid using her alimony to pay a lien imposed by her former divorce lawyer must return to a Broward County trial court to continue litigating the matter. The 4th District Court of Appeal concluded that whether or not the attorney’s lien was enforceable against the wife’s alimony award depended on whether the alimony was needed to pay for the wife’s “daily sustenance or the minimal necessities of life,” or whether it was used to cover less basic expenses.

The case began when M.T. (wife) filed for divorce from her husband, L.T.. The wife sought, among other things, an award of alimony in order to maintain the lifestyle to which she had been accustomed. The wife hired an attorney, but, three months into the relationship, the attorney and the client parted ways. Ultimately, the divorce case proceeded to its conclusion. The trial court’s ruling included an award of alimony to the wife.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent 1st District Court of Appeal ruling provides insight upon all the analysis that must go into an a award of attorneys’ fees in a dissolution of marriage case. Awarding fees and costs requires finding that one spouse has a need for such an award, and the other spouse has the ability to pay. In the recent case, the trial court’s alimony award to the wife essentially equalized the incomes of both spouses, meaning that each spouse had an equal ability to pay and, as a result, the husband should not be required to pay his wife’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The decision came in the case of R.H. (husband) and H.H. (wife), who decided to divorce after 36 years of marriage. At the time of the couple’s divorce trial, the husband’s annual income was $89,000, and the wife’s was $39,000. The trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife alimony in the amount of $2,100 per month for 12 years. The trial court also decided that the husband should pay the wife another $6,000 for her attorneys’ fees and costs.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

An important new Florida Supreme Court decision helps clarify the applicability of waivers in prenuptial agreements. The court concluded that, if a prenuptial agreement’s terms made it clear that a spouse was waiving and releasing all rights and claims to the other spouse’s separate property, that waiver included the increase in value of those non-marital assets, even if the agreement did not expressly cover increased value, and the increase was due to marital efforts or funds.

The case brought to a conclusion the divorce dispute between H.H. (husband), a mortgage broker, and his wife, D.H. The couple married in February 1986 and remained married for 22 years. The month before their marriage, both spouses signed a prenuptial agreement. The agreement stated that, if the spouses purchased a property in both their names, the asset was presumed to be owned 50-50 between them, but if the husband purchased an asset in his own name, even during the marriage, that asset was his separate property.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Creating an equitable distribution between divorcing spouses can often be complex. This can be especially so when one or both spouses hold nonmarital assets that are subject to mortgages and use marital assets to make the mortgage payments on those properties. In the case of one Southwest Florida couple, the 2d District Court of Appeal ruled that the wife should received an offset because, even though the husband’s property declined in value during the marriage, his equity in the asset increased as a result of paying down the mortgage using marital funds.

In this circumstance, R.S. (husband) bought a building in Queens, NY in 1998 that housed two residential apartments and a commercial space. By the time the building owner married his wife, M.S., in 2007, the value of the building stood at approximately $900,000. Shortly before the couple separated five years later, the husband sold the building for $680,000. At the couple’s divorce trial in Fort Myers, the court concluded that the building did not appreciate in value during the duration of the marriage.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many divorce cases, assets are often declared to be marital property unless one spouse kept an asset completely separate. However, in one recent case, the 4th District Court of Appeal declared a couple’s home in Loxahatchee to be the husband’s separate property, even though the couple used their pooled incomes to pay the property’s mortgages and expenses. The ruling stated that, since the property was worth less when the couple divorced than when they got married, the wife’s contributions did not enhance the value of the property, meaning the home remained the husband’s alone.

Years before he married his wife, Lori, William Weaver purchased a property in Loxahatchee. When the couple decided to marry, Lori Weaver sold her house and obtained a profit of $40,000. During their marriage, the Weavers paid the monthly mortgage payments, as well as all expenses on the Loxahatchee home, using their pooled incomes.
Continue reading ›