Articles Posted in Permanent Periodic Alimony

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 ›

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 ›

A bill filed before the Florida Legislature on November 2nd would prohibit judges presiding over a divorce from considering adultery when awarding alimony, place limits on the total amount and length of time alimony may be awarded, and allow divorce agreements in which alimony was awarded to be reopened and renegotiated. House Bill 549 would also terminate all alimony payments once the spouse ordered to pay reaches the age of retirement.

House Bill 549 was filed by Brevard County legislator Ritch Workman. Representative Workman reportedly filed the bill only eight days after his own divorce was finalized in Florida. Although alimony was reportedly not awarded in Workman’s divorce, the Melbourne legislator has stated he believes current Florida alimony laws are inequitable.

Alimony is a tool used by Florida courts to maintain each party’s standard of living after a divorce. Alimony is not awarded in all circumstances, however, as an award of alimony is contingent upon the financial needs of one spouse and the others ability to pay. Additionally, the length of the marriage also plays a factor in an alimony award.

House Bill 549 is part of a growing trend to reform alimony laws both in Florida and across the nation. Workman’s bill was modeled after similar legislation passed recently in Massachusetts. If the bill passes in Florida, its effects would be far-reaching. Even routine divorce settlements could be reopened and reexamined. Since filing House Bill 549, Representative Workman has stated specific portions, such as a cap on awards, should be removed.

The bill closely follows on the heels of recent amendments to the permanent alimony provisions of Florida Statute 61.08 which took effect on July 1, 2011. Permanent alimony 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. Permanent alimony may also be awarded at the discretion of a judge after a moderate or short-term marriage is dissolved. Since July 1st, Florida courts must now determine no other alimony award is “fair and reasonable under the circumstances,” when permanent alimony is awarded. For moderate-term marriages of 7-17 years, clear and convincing evidence permanent alimony is the appropriate award is now required.
Continue reading ›

Divorce attorney’s in Miami, Coral Gables, Hallandale, Plantation and other South Florida cities are preparing for a statutory overhaul regarding legislative modifications to the statute governing alimony. One of the most significant changes is the codification of bridge-the-gap alimony.

Bridge-the-gap alimony assists a party in making the transition from being married to being single. It assists a party with identifiable short term financial needs. A marital and family law judge may not award bridge-the-gap alimony for a period in excess of 2 years. Bridge-the-gap alimony terminates upon the death of either party or upon remarriage of the party that receives alimony. Last but not least, bridge-the-gap alimony is non-modifiable in amount or duration.

Another important change to alimony relates to rehabilitative alimony. Rehabilitative alimony assists a party in redeveloping previous skills or credentials. It also helps a spouse acquire education, training or work experience necessary to develop employment skills. In the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, the court must detail a defined rehabilitative plan. A party may modify or terminate rehabilitative based upon a substantial change in circumstances or compliance with the rehabilitative plan.

In Purrinos v Purrinos, the wife appealed the decision of the Miami-Dade divorce court that failed to award her any type of alimony. The parties were married for 16 years. At the time of the dissolution of marriage action, the husband and wife has three young children. The only marital asset was the marital residence. While both parties were employed during the marriage, the husband earned more than the wife. At the trial, the husband testified that he was involuntarily and temporarily employed. However, he expected to find a new job in the future.

In reversing the decision of the divorce court, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the Wife alimony. The court reasoned that while an alimony award was inappropriate at the time of trial because of the husband’s inability to pay at that time, he may possess the ability to pay alimony in the future. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to award the wife a nominal amount of permanent periodic alimony.

In Greenwald v Greenwald, the husband and wife were married on May 18, 2004. Fourteen months later, the parties filed for divorce in Miami-Dade. In support of her claim for permanent alimony, the wife claimed that the husband induced her to quit her job were she earned $100,00 per year. At trial, e-mail evidence proved that this claim was false since the wife wanted to quit her job prior to the marriage.

While the wife’s request for permanent periodic alimony was denied, Judge Scott Bernstein awarded her $65,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to be paid by the husband. In reversing the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to the wife, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the Miami divorce court should have denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. The court reasoned that the wife made a claim for permanent alimony in a short-term marriage which is rarely successful, the case went to trial on the permanent alimony issue, the basis of the claim was false and the wife turned down a favorable opportunity to settle the alimony matter before trial in a lump sum payment of $36,000.

In Vigo v. Vigo, the Florida marital and family law court awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $5,500 per month. The Third District Court of Appeals, located south of Broward County, reversed the Florida Divorce Judge Maxine Cohen Lando’s decision to award the wife permanent periodic alimony because under Florida law, the wife is not a candidate for permanent periodic alimony.

Permanent periodic alimony is generally reserved for long term marriages, or for marriages where a major inequity is created by the dissolution. This type of alimony is used to maintain the lifestyle that the parties were accustomed to during the duration of the marriage. When determining whether permanent periodic alimony is appropriate, the court also considers the need of the party requesting alimony and the ability of the party who is obligated to pay.

In this case, need turned on whether the Wife would be able to work after the divorce. During the seven and one half year marriage, the Wife worked for three and a half years as a housekeeper and for one year operating her own used car business. In 2005, when she stopped working, the Husband supported her. The evidence on record reflected that the Wife had “serious chronic health problems;” however, the appellate court found that she lived a rather active lifestyle, attending church for three hours at a time, shopping, taking her dog to the park for two hours a day, and visiting the beauty salon. The appellate court found that her ailments would not prevent her from obtaining a sedentary job.