Florida Alimony Reform
Introduction
The Florida Senate has before it Senate Bill 748. The Florida House of Representatives has before it House Bill 549. Both of these Florida alimony reform bills have been substantially modified since the date of their inception. This article will discuss the salient points in the proposed Florida alimony reform legislation.
Analysis of Florida Senate Bill 748
The following is an overview of the changes contained in Florida Senate Bill 748, Florida’s alimony reform statute.
(1) The term “long-term alimony” replaces the term “permanent alimony”.
(2) Under the proposed Florida alimony reform statute, the court may consider the adultery of either spouse in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded to the extent that the adultery caused a significant depletion in the marital assets or caused a significant reduction in the income of a party.
(3) The proposed Florida alimony reform bill adds an eleventh (11th) factor to the factors currently contained in Fla. Stat. 61.08. This factor is the net income available to each party after the application of an award of alimony.
(4) Under the proposed Florida alimony reform legislation, a court may order a payor to purchase a life insurance policy or a bond, or to secure an alimony award with other assets which may be suitable for that purpose. Such security may be awarded only upon a showing of special circumstances. If the court finds special circumstances and awards such security, the court shall make specific evidentiary findings regarding the availability, cost, and financial impact on the payor. The security requirement may be modified if the underlying alimony award is modified.
(5) The Florida alimony reform statute provides that a court may only award long-term alimony if it finds that no other form of alimony will provide for the needs and necessities of life of the recipient as established during the marriage of the parties and that no other form of alimony is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of the parties.
(6) Under the Florida alimony reform bill, the fact that an obligor has reached the normal retirement age for his or her profession, has retired, and has no intent to return to work is considered a substantial change in circumstance as a matter of law for purposes of justifying a modification of alimony. In determining whether the obligor’s retirement is reasonable, the court will consider the payor’s age, health, motivation for retirement, type of work, and normal retirement age for that type of work.
(7) The Florida alimony reform statute states that a court may not reserve jurisdiction to later reinstate alimony if the court terminates an alimony award based on the existence of a supportive relationship.
(8) The proposed Florida alimony reform legislation provides that the modification or termination of an alimony award based on the existence of a supportive relationship may be retroactive to the date of the filing of a petition for modification or termination.
(9) Under the Florida alimony reform bill, the court may grant a final dissolution of marriage with a reservation of jurisdiction to subsequently determine all other substantive issues during the first one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of service of the petition for dissolution in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary for the best interests of the parties or their children.
(10) The proposed Florida alimony reform legislation provides that if more than one hundred eighty (180) days have elapsed following the date of service of the petition for dissolution, the court may grant a final dissolution of marriage with a reservation of jurisdiction to subsequently determine all other substantive issues if the court enters such other temporary orders as are necessary to protect the interests of the parties and their children. These temporary orders shall remain effective until such time as all other issues can be adjudicated by the court. The temporary orders necessary to protect the interests of the children and the parties, which may be entered before the granting of a dissolution of marriage without an adjudication of all substantive issues, may include, but need not be limited to, temporary orders that: (a) restrict the sale or disposition of property, (b) protect and preserve the marital assets, (c) establish support, (d) provide for the maintenance of health insurance, and (e) provide for the maintenance of life insurance.
Analysis of Florida House Bill 549
The following is an overview of the changes contained in Florida House Bill 549, Florida’s alimony reform statute.
(1) The term “long-term alimony” replaces the term “permanent alimony”.
(2) The Florida alimony reform statute states that a court may grant bridge the-gap, rehabilitative, durational, or long-term alimony, or a combination of these forms of alimony. The court is directed to make written findings regarding the basis for awarding combinations of alimony, including the type of alimony and the length of time during which it is awarded. The purpose of combining forms of alimony is to provide greater economic assistance to allow the recipient spouse to achieve rehabilitation or an ability to contribute to the needs and necessities of life, taking into account such needs and necessities of life as they were established during the marriage.
(3) The Florida alimony reform bill permits a court to consider the adultery of either spouse in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded, only to the extent that the adultery caused a significant depletion in the material assets or caused a significant reduction in the income of a party.
(4) The current statute states that in awarding alimony the court should consider the financial resources of each party, including the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each. The Florida alimony reform statute provides that in awarding alimony the court should consider the financial resources of each party, including the nonmarital assets that were relied upon and utilized by the parties during the marriage and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.
(5) The current statute states that, in awarding alimony, the court is to consider all sources of income available to either party, including income available to either party through investments of any asset held by that party. The Florida alimony reform bill provides that, in awarding alimony, the court is to only consider all sources of income available to either party, including income available to either party through investments of any asset held by that party that were acquired during the marriage.
(6) The proposed Florida alimony reform statute adds an additional factor to the eleven (11) factors currently contained in Fla. Stat. 61.08. This factor is the net income and standard of living available to each party after the application of the alimony award. The proposed Florida alimony reform bill states that there is a rebuttable presumption that both parties will necessarily have a lower standard of living after the dissolution of marriage than the standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage.
(7) The Florida alimony reform bill states that to the extent necessary to protect an award of alimony, the court may order a party who is ordered to pay alimony to purchase a life insurance policy or a bond, or to otherwise secure such alimony award with any other assets which may be suitable for that purpose in an amount adequate to secure the alimony award. This requirement may only be imposed upon a showing of special circumstances. If the court finds that special circumstances exist, the court shall make evidentiary findings regarding the availability, cost, and financial impact on the obligated party. The security requirement may be modified in the event that the underlying alimony award is modified, and shall be reduced in an amount commensurate with any reduction in the alimony award.
(8) The Florida alimony reform statute defines a moderate-term marriage as a marriage having a duration of greater than seven (7) years, but less than twenty (20) years, and a long-term marriage as a marriage having a duration of twenty (20) years or greater.
(9) The current statute states that durational alimony may be awarded to provide a party with economic assistance for a set period of time following a marriage of short or moderate duration or following a marriage of long duration if there is no ongoing need for support on a permanent basis. The Florida alimony reform bill provides that durational alimony may be awarded following a marriage of moderate duration or long duration if there is no ongoing need for support on a long-term basis.
(10) The Florida alimony reform bill states that, except in exceptional circumstances, the amount of an award of durational alimony shall be modified or terminated based upon a substantial change in circumstances or upon the existence of a supportive relationship.
(11) The Florida alimony reform statute provides that an award of alimony may not leave the payor with less net income or with a lower standard of living than the recipient unless there are exceptional circumstances.
(12) The proposed Florida alimony reform legislation provides that a court must, except in exceptional circumstances, reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides.
(13) The Florida alimony reform statute creates a rebuttable presumption that any modification or termination of an alimony award is retroactive to the date of the filing of the supplemental petition. In an action for modification as a result of the payee entering into a supportive relationship, if it is determined that the obligee unnecessarily or unreasonably litigated the underlying petition for modification or termination, the court may award the obligor reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 61.16 and applicable case law.
(14) The proposed Florida alimony reform legislation states that if a court terminates an alimony award based on the existence of a supportive relationship, it may not reserve jurisdiction to later reinstate alimony.
(15) The Florida alimony reform bill states that if an obligor remarries or resides with another person, the income and assets of the obligor's spouse or person with whom the obligor resides may not be considered in a modification action regarding such obligor except for purposes of discovery to determine the obligor’s income or assets within the pooled income and assets.
(16) The Florida alimony reform statute states that the fact that an obligor has reached a reasonable retirement age shall be considered a substantial change in circumstances as a matter of law for purposes for modifying alimony. There is a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable retirement age for purposes of this subsection is sixty-seven (67) years of age. In anticipation of retirement, the obligor may file a petition for termination or modification of the alimony award effective upon the retirement date. The court shall terminate or modify the alimony award based on the circumstances of the parties after retirement of the obligor and based on the statutory factors contained in subsection (2), unless the court makes findings of fact that a termination or modification of an alimony award is not warranted. In determining whether the obligor's retirement age is reasonable, the court will consider the following factors: age, health, motivation for retirement, type of work, and the normal retirement age for that type of work.
(17) The Florida alimony reform bill states that except in cases of marriages of long duration, in awarding alimony, the court shall impute income to the obligee based upon an analysis of the factors contained in Florida’s child support guidelines statute, Fla. Stat. § 61.30(2)(b).
(18) The proposed Florida alimony reform legislation provides that in the event that there are exceptional circumstances where it is clearly necessary to protect the parties or their children and the granting of a final dissolution will not cause irreparable harm to the parties or their children; during the first one hundred (180) days after the date of service of the petition for dissolution, the court may grant a final dissolution of marriage with a reservation of jurisdiction to subsequently determine all other substantive issues. Before granting a final dissolution of marriage with a reservation of jurisdiction to subsequently determine all other substantive issues, the court shall enter appropriate temporary orders necessary to protect the parties and their children, which orders shall remain effective until such time as all other issues can be adjudicated by the court.
(19) The Florida alimony reform bill provides that if more than one hundred eighty (180) days have elapsed since the date of service of the petition for dissolution, the court may grant a final dissolution of marriage with a reservation of jurisdiction to subsequently determine all other substantive issues only if the court enters appropriate temporary orders necessary to protect the parties and their children. These temporary orders shall remain effective until such time as all other issues can be adjudicated by the court. The Court must make a written finding that no irreparable harm will result from granting a final dissolution.
(20) The proposed Florida alimony reform statute provides that if more than three hundred sixty-five (365) days have elapsed since the date of service of the petition for dissolution, absent a showing by either party that irreparable harm will result from granting a final dissolution, the court shall, upon request of either party, immediately grant a final dissolution of marriage with a reservation of jurisdiction to subsequently determine all other substantive issues. Before granting a final dissolution of marriage with a reservation of jurisdiction to subsequently determine all other substantive issues, the court shall enter appropriate temporary orders necessary to protect the parties and their children, which orders shall remain effective until such time as all other issues can be adjudicated by the court. The temporary orders necessary to protect the parties and their children entered prior to granting a dissolution of marriage without an adjudication of all substantive issues may include, but shall not be limited to, temporary orders that: restrict the sale or disposition of property, protect and preserve the marital assets, establish temporary support, provide for maintenance of health insurance, and provide for maintenance of life insurance. The court is not required to enter temporary orders to protect the parties and their children if the court enters a final judgment of marriage which adjudicates substantially all of the substantive issues between the parties but reserves jurisdiction to address ancillary issues such as the entry of a qualified domestic relations order or the adjudication of attorney’s fees and costs.
I strongly urge the support of the House Version of the Alimony Reform Bill (HB549) and vote in favor of SB 748. The alimony guidelines and laws currently in effect are unfair and outdated at best and in many cases punitive to the payer.
My fiance pays lifetime permanent support to an ex-spouse who came out of the closet and declared herself a lesbian after 20 years of marriage. She is perfectly capable of supporting herself yet chooses not to. She is college educated, worked as a human resources executive and is now an activist and journalist for gay and lesbian causes and publications. The alimony amount my fiance is required to pay is based on his gross income in 2005, an amount he hasn’t come close to matching in any of the ensuing seven years. The alimony his ex-wife receives equals more than 50% of his net income. Because the court awarded her permanent and lifetime alimony, he is compelled to work and pay her until the day he dies.
The Hillsborough County Court was not allowed to consider her change in sexual orientation when it ended their marriage and he is now forced to support her and her new lifestyle. Why must he pay a declared lesbian for the rest of his life? The current laws render him (and me) indentured servants.
The current laws also impacts our decision of whether or not we marry. Should we wed, my assets could be considered along with his if the lesbian ex-wife were to petition the court for an upward modification to the alimony she already receives. She has already indicated her intent to do so. Thus, we have delayed our legal and moral union. The current alimony laws are anti-family and appear to favor the gay agenda in this case. This is reprehensible and sinful.
Clearly the alimony laws need changing and the changes must be retroactive to address the injustices dealt my fiance and thousands of others. Why should anyone be forced to pay alimony for longer than they were married or into their retirement years?
In this particular case, why should anything other than temporary-short term rehabilitative alimony be awarded? The revised legislation should include guidelines for the amount and duration of alimony and include special provisions for normal heterosexual people in situations like this. I am counting on your support for this legislation as well as additional amendments that address this special circumstance.
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your time and attention to this very important issue.
Please support HB 549. It is the only true reform bill although it contains many compromises.
The SB 748 is NOT real alimony reform.
Reform is crucially necessary for families in Florida.
My fiance was divorced in Hillsborough County in 2005 only because his ex-wife decided to pursue a lesbian lifestyle after twenty years of marriage. The court awarded her lifetime and permanent alimony when she was 46 years old and in excellent health.
This is a highly competent woman who simply chooses not to work. She is educated and worked as a human resources executive during the marriage then voluntarily left that position to pursue artistic and freelance photo-journalism part-time assignments.
Permanent alimony was born when women had no economic power, divorce was rare, and cohabitation was scandalous. Given that times have changed, permanent alimony does not make sense.
Alimony for a set amount of time that has limits is fair and just. Alimony granted for a limited amount of time allows for a person to be able to seek employment, get vocational training, or degreed education to return to the work force.
There is a huge difference between permanent alimony that enslaves the payer to the ex-spouse versus a set and limited period of time for alimony. Permanent alimony in essence does not allow the couple to truly be ‘divorced’ from each other since the financial tie is always there.
My fiance and I would like to marry yet if we do, his ex has threatened to seek an upward modification in alimony because I have assets. He and I are 55 years old. We fear his ex will deplete me of my assets if we marry. In essence, the state of Florida would rather we live together and in sin rather than in marriage by being so anti-family and allowing his ex the ability to collect permanent alimony.
Why should he be punished to pay her till his death when it was her decision to pursue a different lifestyle that certainly didn’t include him? She is avaricious and hypocrital.
Florida is one of very few states that has backwards, out-of-date laws.
Please support HB 549. Please allow those currently paying lifetime permanent alimony the ability to retroactively change their alimony obligation to a limited-temporary set amount of time alimony.
Thank you for your interest and attention to this important matter.
It is unfortunate that alimony reform has been stalled. The alimony guidelines and laws currently in effect are unfair and outdated at best and in many cases punitive to the payer.
My fiance pays lifetime permanent support to an ex-spouse who came out of the closet and declared herself a lesbian after 20 years of marriage. She is perfectly capable of supporting herself yet chooses not to. She is college educated, worked as a human resources executive and voluntarily left that to pursue artistic and writing interests. She is now an activist and journalist for gay and lesbian causes and publications. The alimony amount my fiance is required to pay is based on his gross income in 2005, an amount he hasn’t come close to matching in any of the ensuing seven years. The alimony his ex-wife receives equals more than 50% of his net income. Because the court awarded her permanent and lifetime alimony, he is compelled to work and pay her until the day he dies.
The Hillsborough County Court was not allowed to consider her change in sexual orientation when it ended their marriage. Consequently, he is now forced to support her and her new lifestyle. The Court was also not allowed to consider several same sex (adulterous) relationships in the marital home while the minor children were in the home and during the marriage. Why must he pay a declared lesbian for the rest of his life? Why does her decision to end the marriage to pursue her lesbian sexual desires have to punish him financially?
The current laws render him (and me) indentured servants. Actually, it allows her to be a parasite upon him, the host.
The current laws also impacts our decision of whether or not we marry. Should we wed, my assets could be considered along with his if the lesbian ex-wife were to petition the court for an upward modification to the alimony she already receives. She has already indicated her intent to do so. Thus, we have delayed our legal and moral union and have sought legal advice to insure that not happen. My investments that allow me not to ever be employed are for my and my future husband’s enjoyment and benefit-certainly not hers.
The current alimony laws are anti-family and appear to favor the gay agenda in this case. This is reprehensible and sinful. It also demonstrates that she, the very vocal and avowed feminist is actually avaricious and hypocritical. We believe that someday when the children realize the hypocrisy of their mother and the extreme unfairness to their father, they will be disappointed in her lack of character and moral fiber as demonstrated by her expectation to be supported forever by him–after she was the one who left the marriage!
Clearly the alimony laws need changing and the changes must be retroactive to address the injustices dealt my fiance and thousands of others. Why should anyone be forced to pay alimony for longer than they were married or into their retirement years? Why should anyone be forced to pay lifetime alimony to the person who went down a path (homosexual) a heterosexual spouse could not go on anymore? Was this fraud? He believes so after reflection.
In this particular case, why should anything other than temporary-short term rehabilitative alimony be awarded? He believed his ex would demonstrate the honorable and moral path to be self sufficient, independent of him and employed full-time with health benefits. It’s now been eight years since he moved from the marital home and she hasn’t done anything but provide excuses and complain. She has no incentive to truly work for a living since she receives a large amount of money from him indefinitely.
He had abided by all her requests and not physically moved from the home due to a religious event a child was preparing for. He did not want to disrupt this. Little did he know, the judicial clock was ticking and although they remained married on paper, it was a facade. There was no real marriage for several years before he moved out and she maintained her extracurricular lesbian relationships. With the time ticking away, the marriage progressed to be categorized as “long term” and therefore, he was ordered to pay permanent and lifetime alimony.
Nowadays, there is nothing but excuses given about her lack of earnings. Parental alienation has been employed to garner support for herself. To quote Shakespeare, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Legislation should include guidelines for the amount and duration of alimony and include special provisions for normal heterosexual people in situations like this. I am counting on legislation that will address the complete removal of permanent and lifetime alimony as well as additional amendments that address this special circumstance.