Articles Posted in Alimony

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:

Published on: | by

In a recent Broward divorce case, the former husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He claimed that Broward Circuit Judge Alfred J. Horowitz entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage that did not reflect a settlement agreement that was reached by the parties and subsequently announced on the record.

During the trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement which was announced on the record by the former wife’s counsel. The trial court ensured that both parties had discussed the terms and conditions with their lawyer, had their respective questions answered and were entering into the agreement freely and voluntarily. Next, the trial court instructed the lawyers to submit a proposed final judgment of dissolution of marriage reflecting the agreement announced in open court. Counsel for the former wife moved for the entry of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage when the former husband had retained new counsel, Sandy T. Fox, Esquire, who objected to the former wife’s proposed final judgment of dissolution of marriage.

At the hearing several weeks later, the former husband’s new Fort Lauderdale divorce attorney, Sandy T. Fox, Esquire, argued that the former wife’s proposed final judgment of dissolution of marriage did not reflect to the oral stipulation announced on the record. Specifically, Mr. Fox disagreed with the proposed final judgment of dissolution of marriage as it related to the duration of alimony, child support award, equitable distribution of the marital residence and the payment of attorney’s fees and costs. Judge Horowitz instructed the Broward divorce attorneys to submit a proposed final judgment of dissolution of marriage in accordance with the settlement agreement that was announced in open court.

After receiving a letter from Mr. Fox that objected to the former wife’s proposed final judgment of dissolution of marriage along with the former husband’s proposed final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court adopted the former wife’s proposed final judgment of dissolution without any changes whatsoever.

The settlement agreement provided for durational alimony of $1,000 per month but did not specify that it would continue for ten years, a period of time unilaterally selected by the former wife. As such, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage was remanded for the trial court to consider the duration of alimony and make findings consistent with section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2009).
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal has reversed a permanent periodic alimony and attorney fees award in a high profile divorce case. A Miami-Dade trial court awarded Nancy Loftus Quinones $14,135 in monthly alimony following her 2009 divorce from her husband of 18 years, ABC News correspondent John M. Quinones. At the time of the parties’ divorce, the former wife was reportedly largely unemployed for 18 years and the former husband earned more than $1 million per year. The couple also had two children who were attending private schools, one of whom was still a minor. Mr. Quinones reportedly voluntarily paid the private school tuition for both children.

At the time of the divorce, Mr. Quinones reportedly brought home more than $58,000 per month. He allegedly paid approximately $52,000 per year on college tuition and other payments for the couple’s adult son. Because the parties reportedly did not enter into a contractual agreement regarding the tuition payments, the trial court committed error when it considered the former husband’s voluntary payments for the couple’s adult child when determining the wife’s alimony award. This increased Mr. Quinones’ monthly expenses and reduced the amount of money he had available each month to pay alimony to his former wife.

Mrs. Quinones claimed she required $28,000 per month in order to maintain her current lifestyle. According to the Third District Court, the number was not unreasonable based on the parties’ lifestyle and her former husband’s income. Despite that no evidence was offered to refute the former wife’s financial claims, the trial court adjusted her alimony award downward. Consequently, the Third District Court of Appeal determined the trial court failed to properly take into account the standard of living the wife enjoyed prior to the couple’s divorce as required by Florida Statute.

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of the permanent periodic alimony award. On remand, the trial court was ordered to disregard Mr. Quinones’ voluntary payment of tuition expenses for his adult child and to take into account the standard of living enjoyed by the parties prior to the dissolution of their marriage. Additionally, because there was nothing in the trial court record to demonstrate the former wife engaged in behavior to prolong litigation or inflate her attorney’s fees, the Court reversed the trial court’s costs award and remanded the issue for reconsideration. Finally, the Third District affirmed the trial court’s equitable distribution award.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Two bills passed by the Florida House died in the Senate as the legislative session ended on March 9th. House Bill 549 would have put an end to permanent alimony in the State of Florida. House Bill 1209 was designed to ban Florida courts from considering foreign or religious law in legal decisions. As the session ended, the Florida Senate chose not to call either bill to the floor for a vote. Proponents of both measures have vowed to reintroduce the proposed laws in the future.

A spokesperson for the Florida Alimony Reform group, Alan Frisher, expressed disappointment in the Senate’s failure to pass alimony reform during the recent legislative session. According to Frisher, current alimony laws promote extended periods of animosity between ex-spouses. He believes the state should instead focus on the length of a couple’s marriage as well as transitional alimony which would purportedly encourage both spouses to become self-sufficient. Frisher stated the organization will continue to fight to change the state’s allegedly antiquated alimony laws. The Family Law Section of the Florida Bar Association strongly opposed House Bill 549 and the organization’s head, David Manz, referred to the Florida Alimony Reform group as a vocal minority.

The Florida Senate also declined to vote on House Bill 1209, “Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases.” Although the measure did not single out Islamic law, it was often referred to by critics as the the “anti-Sharia” bill. If re-elected, Senate sponsor Alan Hays of Umatilla plans on reintroducing the measure in the next legislative session. Opponents of the failed measure have stated such a law is unnecessary and expressed concern over the intent of the bill as well as its effect on family law matters such as divorce and child custody. According to Hays, the measure was simply designed to ensure United States law is the only law considered by Florida courts.

In Florida, a court may award alimony where there is a need on the part of the alimony receiver and an ability to pay on the part of the alimony payor. A needs assessment will examine the distribution of marital assets and the couple’s standard of living prior to the divorce. If the potential alimony receiver has the ability to maintain the same standard of living after all assets are distributed, a Florida court generally will not award alimony.

Each year, many Americans find themselves in the midst of divorce proceedings. Although the range of emotions associated with the end of a marriage can feel overwhelming, the financial damage can also be devastating. If you are faced with the dissolution of your marriage, contact a qualified divorce attorney to help you protect your interests. An experienced divorce lawyer will discuss your options with you and help you file your case.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In an 83-30 vote, the Florida House has passed Representative Ritch Workman’s bill designed to end permanent alimony in the state. House Bill 549 would not only prohibit new permanent alimony obligations in favor of long-term support orders, but it could also be applied retroactively to permanent alimony awards made in the past. This means Florida citizens currently paying permanent alimony would have the opportunity to reduce or eliminate spousal support obligations. The bill will now move on to the Florida Senate.

If the bill becomes law, it would reduce the length of time a court may award alimony payments to half of the length of the marriage absent additional written justification by a court outlining the need for a longer duration. It would also make it easier for those paying alimony to stop payments upon retirement and prohibit a court from ordering the paying spouse to live on a lower net income than the payee. Additionally, the law would prohibit a court from considering the income and assets of an alimony payer’s new spouse upon remarriage.

According to Florida Alimony Reform (FAR), a group that assisted in writing the bill, the law is necessary because current Florida alimony laws are unfair to men. 95 percent of divorced individuals paying alimony in the state are men and the financial burden of permanent alimony awards often prevent them from retiring. House Bill 549 was a compromise bill. FAR originally advocated for more sweeping alimony reforms.

The Florida Bar Association has publicly criticized the alimony bill and accused FAR of spreading misinformation. According to a press release written by David Manz of the Florida Bar Association’s Family Law Section, the proposed law is “far-reaching in magnitude and would have significant adverse and unintended consequences.” Although the Florida Bar reportedly agrees alimony reform is necessary, the organization claims FAR has exaggerated the purported lack of fairness in the current system. Manz also stated the Bar Association would support fair reform to Florida’s alimony laws.

In Florida, an alimony award is intended to maintain each spouse’s standard of living after a divorce. Because an award of alimony is contingent upon the financial needs of one spouse and the other’s ability to pay, alimony is not awarded in all circumstances. The length of the marriage also factors into any alimony awarded by a Florida court.

Although a permanent alimony award may be made at the discretion of a judge after a moderate or short-term marriage is dissolved, it is normally awarded to a spouse who is no longer capable of meeting basic financial needs after a long term marriage of more than 17 years. Florida courts are required to determine no other alimony award is “fair and reasonable under the circumstances,” before permanent alimony is awarded. For marriages which lasted between 7-17 years, there must be clear and convincing evidence permanent alimony is the appropriate award.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Last month, a Hillsborough County Circuit judge ordered the arrest of a successful Tampa area businessman, after he was found guilty of five counts of criminal contempt of court for failure to pay his child support and alimony obligations. The man reportedly failed to attend the contempt hearing where Judge Caroline Tesche sentenced him to almost six months in jail for repeatedly refusing to pay more than $6 million in alimony and child support.

The man’s ex-wife initiated divorce proceedings in 2009 and the former couple reached a final settlement agreement in July 2011. Although the couple has a 12-year-old son together, she stated her former husband has not supported them for several years. According to her attorney, the man now owes his ex-wife $10 million.

The man in this case is reportedly a decorated Vietnam veteran, a former president of a company, and previously ran a building materials business which allegedly reported profits of more than $4 million per month at its height. At one point, he reportedly owned a mansion and regularly drove several high end sports cars. Now, the man claims he is financially insolvent. In fact, he allegedly filed for bankruptcy just three days prior to the contempt hearing. Still, Judge Tesche believes the father has the ability to pay.

This man reportedly owns stock in several large companies as well as other assets. His attorney has argued that the man’s hands are tied as the former couple’s settlement agreement prohibits him from selling his stock in order to generate cash. He also claims the man is unable to liquidate any of his assets and lives off of loans and a small monthly Department of Veterans Affairs disability check.

According to the former wife, her ex-husband has the money and is merely hiding millions of dollars in assets from her. In November 2010, he spent more than two weeks in jail for refusing to produce documents during the couple’s divorce proceedings. When he filed for bankruptcy, the man reportedly estimated his assets as being in the range of $100 to $500 million and his liabilities at no more than $50 million. To further complicate the case, the Internal Revenue Service is also allegedly performing a criminal investigation into his affairs. His attorney has stated he is not aware of the man’s current location.

Each year many Florida residents find themselves in the midst of a less than amicable divorce. Understandably, the host of emotions associated with the end of a marriage can be overwhelming. The financial damage can oftentimes make a bad situation even worse. If you are contemplating divorce, you need an experienced family law attorney to help you protect your financial interests.
Continue reading ›