Skilled Family Law Counsel

WHAT IS DURATIONAL ALIMONY IN FLORIDA?

Durational alimony is awarded to provide the recipient spouse with economic assistance for a specific period of time.  An award of durational alimony will not exceed 50% percent of the length of a short-term marriage, 60% percent of the length of a moderate-term marriage, and 75% of the length of a long-term marriage.  There is a rebuttable presumption that a marriage of less than 10 years is a short-term marriage, a marriage of between 10 years and 20 years is a moderate-term marriage, and a marriage of 20 years or more is a long-term marriage.

Under “exceptional circumstance”, a court may extend the length of durational alimony.  Some of these exceptional circumstances include, without limitation: (i) the extent to which the recipient’s age and employability limit the recipient’s ability to become self-supporting; (ii) the extent to which the recipient’s financial resources limit the recipient’s ability to be self-supporting; (iii) the extent to which the recipient is mentally or physically disabled; and (iv) the extent to which the recipient is the caregiver to a mentally or physically disabled child of the parties.

The amount of durational alimony is the amount required to meet the recipient’s “reasonable needs”.  However, the amount of durational alimony may not exceed 35% of the difference between the parties’ net incomes.

WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING ALIMONY IN FLORIDA?

An alimony case involving the reimbursement of business expenses was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Ortega v. Wood.  In Ortega v. Wood, the husband was an optician who owned an optical business with his mother.  The wife sought to impute income to the husband for in-kind benefits and business expense reimbursements that were provided to the husband by his business.  The optical business provided the husband with an apartment at no cost and paid for his personal expenses, including his dentist appointments, his doctor’s appointments, his massages, his lab tests, his pharmaceuticals, his lawn mower, and products that he ordered from GNC.

In reaching its alimony determination, the trial court did not consider the business’ provision of the husband’s apartment and the payments for the husband’s medical appointments, dental appointments, lab tests, massages, GNC products, and pharmaceuticals to be income. Because the husband testified that the business provided all of its employees with the same reimbursements, the trial court ruled that these payments were reasonable business expenses and did not consider them to be income when it calculated the husband’s alimony obligation.

The wife appealed the trial court’s Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage to the Florida Court of Appeal.  The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the trial court should have included the in-kind payments and expense reimbursements that husband received from the optical business in determining the husband’s alimony obligation.  The appellate court pointed out that under Florida law, for purposes of calculating alimony, “income” is defined as any type of payment, including, without limitation, salary, wages, bonuses, commissions, disability benefits, worker’s compensation, retirement benefits and annuities, dividends, pensions, interest, trusts, royalties, and any other payments made by a private entity, person, or governmental entity.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ALIMONY IN FLORIDA?

There are four types of alimony in Florida.  They are temporary alimony, bridge-the-gap alimony, rehabilitative alimony and durational alimony.  Trial courts may award one or any combination of these four types of alimony.

In a recent case captioned Ogle v. Ogle, the Florida Court of Appeal described the purpose of these different types of alimony.

Temporary alimony is a form of alimony payable during the time that an action for dissolution of marriage is pending. In determining whether and to what extent temporary alimony will be awarded, trial courts will consider the needs of the spouses requesting alimony and the ability of the other spouses to pay alimony.

PARENTAL DECISION MAKING IN FLORIDA

In Florida, courts may award shared parental responsibility, sole parental responsibility and ultimate decision making authority.  Florida courts prefer to award shared parental decision making.

Shared parental responsibility means that parents are required to attempt to confer and reach agreement on major issues that affect the welfare of their children. Major decisions include the children’s education, extra-curricular activities, healthcare, social and religious training and general welfare.  In the event that parents are unable to reach agreement on a major issue that affects the welfare of their child, the issue can then be resolved by the trial court.

Sole parental responsibility means that one parent can unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the parties’ child without consulting with the other parent.  A Florida Court will award sole parental responsibility when the court determines that shared parental decision making would be detrimental to a child’s best interests.

Wellington Florida Divorce – Division of Property and Assets

In making a division of property and assets in a divorce proceeding, there must be extraordinary circumstances to award an interim partial distribution. In Defanti v. Russell, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: “This is an appeal from the circuit court’s order granting the former wife’s amended sworn motion for summary judgment, which sought an interim partial distribution of marital assets in a dissolution of marriage case. The former husband’s estate argues that the former wife was not entitled to the interim partial distribution because she did not show the statutorily-required good cause. We agree with the estate and reverse.

The good cause requirement for an interim partial distribution arises from section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (2012). Section 61.075(5), in pertinent part, states: If the court finds good cause that there should be an interim partial distribution during the pendency of a dissolution action, the court may enter an interim order that shall identify and value the marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities made the subject of the sworn motion, set apart those nonmarital assets and liabilities, and provide for a partial distribution of those marital assets and liabilities…..(a) Such an interim order shall be entered only upon good cause shown and upon sworn motion establishing specific factual basis for the motion. The motion may be filed by either party and shall demonstrate good cause why the matter should not be deferred until the final hearing…(d) As used in this subsection, the term “good cause” means extraordinary circumstances that require an interim partial distribution. Section 61.075(5), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added)….We conclude that the former wife did not show without genuine issue of material fact that extraordinary circumstances required an interim partial distribution of her one-half share of the liquid assets. See id. (“Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”). As the husband’s memorandum in opposition argued, the former wife’s motion offered no showing of good cause, that is, extraordinary circumstances which required the interim partial distribution. Thus, the circuit court should have denied the former wife’s motion pending trial, at which time the court could have included the former wife’s one-half share as part of its determination of whether to impose an equal or unequal distribution of the parties’ marital assets and liabilities pursuant to section 61.075(1), Florida Statutes (2012).”

To speak with a Wellington Florida divorce attorney, contact Matthew Lane and Associates, P.A. at (561) 328-1111

The Requirement to Purchase Life Insurance to Secure Alimony Awards in Florida

As part of an alimony obligation, a payor may be required to purchase life insurance to secure the award. In a recently decided case captioned Sager v. Sager the former husband appealed the final judgment. He argued that the trial court erred in requiring him to purchase life insurance to secure his alimony obligation. Husband and wife were married in 1982, and the former husband filed for divorce in 2016. Former husband was a mortgage broker and former wife was a teacher. The parties lived in the State of New Jersey for a large part of their marriage. The parties moved to the State of Florida and bought two houses. They used one as the marital home and used the other as a rental property. The former husband was 72 years old, and was retired. The former wife was 66 years of age. She did not have a college degree and was an early childhood teacher. She was also a substitute teacher in the summer. The trial court required the former husband to purchase a $250,000 life insurance policy to secure his alimony obligation to the former wife. The former husband appealed from the judgment requiring him to purchase the life insurance policy.

To secure alimony, the Florida Court of Appeal stated that trial courts may require that life insurance be purchased to secure alimony obligations when the trial courts make specific findings of fact that: (i) insurance is available for the payor, (ii) the payor has the ability to pay its cost, and (iii) that special circumstances warrant its purchase. Special circumstances that warrant the requirement that an obligor purchase life insurance include where the payee would be left in dire economic straits if the payor died, or where the payee is elderly, disabled, or has limited employment skills and the payor’s death would cause the payee to be dependent upon the generosity or welfare of others.

To speak with a divorce attorney in Wellington, Florida, contact the Lane Law Firm, P.A.

Relocation – Change of Parent’s Residence in Florida

Relocation Rulings

Relocation is a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent from his principal place of residence at the time of the last order related to time-sharing, or at the time of filing the pending action to establish or modify time-sharing “Prior to October 1, 2009, ‘relocation’ was defined in terms of a change of the primary residence of the child. Beginning October 1, 2009, ‘relocation’ is defined as: ‘a change in the location of the principal residence of a parent or other person from his or her principal place of residence at the time of the last order establishing or modifying time-sharing, or at the time of filing the pending action to establish or modify time-sharing… Based on section 61.13001 (1)(e) and A. F., the mother is correct in arguing that if she had already moved to Louisiana prior to the father’s filing of the petition to determine paternity or any order establishing or modifying time-sharing, then she is not subject to the relocation statute.” Essex v. Davis. 

Reduction of Alimony by Live-In Relationships in Florida

In alimony cases, living with someone may reduce or eliminate the need for alimony when the live-in relationship is found to be substantially equivalent to a remarriage. In a recently decided case captioned Bruce v. Bruce, the wife appealed the trial court’s refusal to award her alimony. The parties were married for twenty years. They had three children. The wife worked part time and took care of the children during the day. The wife had serious medical issues, including being hearing impaired and having permanent arthritis, and was a cancer survivor. The wife moved out of the marital home and into an apartment with her boyfriend. The wife denied that she was in a supportive relationship with her boyfriend. The wife contended that she owes her boyfriend back rent, which she intends to repay in the future. The wife contended that she pays for her own phone, electric and water bills and pays for her own groceries. The wife and her boyfriend have no joint financial accounts, they have no joint investments and they do not jointly own personal or real property.

The lower court denied alimony to the wife because it found that the wife had entered into a supportive relationship with her boyfriend. The Florida Court of Appeal held that under the Florida law, it is appropriate for trial courts to consider party’s supportive relationships in awarding alimony. The Court of Appeals directed Florida trial courts to look at the particular circumstances of each case. Florida courts are to utilize the factors contained in the Florida Statutes to determine whether alimony should be reduced or denied where there is a supportive relationship. The court defined supportive relationships to be relationships that take the financial place of marriages. Supportive relationships decrease the financial need of former spouses. The financial support in a supportive relationship is equivalent to a marriage and permits the reduction or elimination of the need for alimony. However, financial support alone does not create a supportive relationship. The court is required to look at the nature of the live-in relationship and the length of time the relationship has existed. Only when the relationship is the equivalent to a remarriage is the reduction or elimination of an alimony obligation warranted. The trial court must look into the extent and nature of the supportive relationship and how the relationship permanently reduces a party’s need for alimony.

To speak with an alimony attorney in Wellington, Florida, contact Matthew La ne & Associates, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.

Permanent Alimony in Florida

In a recently decided alimony case captioned Ritacco v. Ritacco, the Husband and Wife were married for more than twenty-two years.  The Husband was the sole income provider during the marriage. The Wife raised the parties’ daughters, and did not work outside of the home.  The Husband receives a salary, a pension, and owns a DROP account.  The Florida Court of Appeal decided four alimony issues.

First, the appellate court pointed out that there is a rebuttable presumption that the trial court should award permanent alimony when there is a long term marriage.  A long-term marriage is a marriage that exceeds seventeen years.

Second, the Court of Appeal recognized that a trial court should impute income that can reasonably be received from a party’s liquid assets.  Where a party receives an award of equitable distribution that will result in immediate income, this income will be included in making an alimony calculation.  However, in the case at bar, the amount of income was so small that the court declined to impute it as income.

Permanent Alimony in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

In Florida, permanent alimony is rebuttably presumed to be appropriate in a marriage that exceeds seventeen years. In a case captioned Hedden v. Hedden, the wife appealed a judgment terminating her marriage of thirty-seven years. The parties have two children. The wife was a stay-at-home mother for a majority of the marriage. The wife was last employed twelve years prior to date of the trial. The wife also had a medical condition. The trial court found that the wife had a need for support and that the husband had the ability to pay. The trial court awarded the Wife both permanent and durational alimony. The durational alimony was scheduled to end when the wife reached age 62. At age 62, the wife was eligible to receive Social Security benefits.

The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court for two reasons. First, the Court of Appeal held that, in Florida, permanent alimony is rebuttably presumed to be appropriate when there is a long-term marriage. A long-term marriage is defined as a marriage that exceeds seventeen years. Permanent support is appropriate where no other type of support would be fair and reasonable. The purpose of durational alimony is to provide the recipient with alimony for a set period of time when there is not an ongoing need for support. A court should not award durational alimony where there is a need for ongoing support. Where a recipient has an ongoing need for support, durational alimony is inappropriate and permanent alimony is the appropriate remedy. Additionally, an award of support should not be based upon a predicted increase in the recipient’s income.  This award is to be based upon the present circumstances of the parties. The court may always modify a support award should the parties’ circumstances change in the future.

To speak with an alimony attorney in Palm Beach Gardens , Florida, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.