Articles Posted in Alimony

Florida Alimony Reform legislation recently failed in the Florida legislature with the early departure of the Florida House of Representatives on April 28, 2015. A special session for the Florida legislature is likely to take place on June 1, 2015, however, Alimony Reform legislation may or may not be addressed at that time.

The main point of disagreement between the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate was language that was contained in the Florida Senate version of the alimony reform bill which provided that equal time-sharing with minor children by both parents is presumed to be in the best interest of the children. The members of the Florida House of Representatives felt that each case is unique, and that the courts are in the best position to reach time-sharing determinations without preconceived guidelines. Whether consensus is able to be reached on these positions is yet to be determined.

The Alimony Reform bill created guidelines, comprised of presumptive alimony amounts and presumptive alimony durations.

The correct standard for temporary alimony balances needs, as fixed by the parties’ standard of living and the ability to pay on the other. In Hoffman v. Hoffman, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: “Although the order under review is a temporary support order in which the circuit court has broad discretion, we conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in requiring the Husband to virtually exhaust his monthly income to make the ordered payments, leaving him with insufficient funds to support himself.

The order’s requirement that the Husband spend in excess of 80% of his income in monthly support and temporary attorney’s fee payments reflects an abuse of discretion on its face…'[t]he correct standard by which temporary support and alimony are to be assessed balances needs, as fixed by the parties’ standard of living on the one hand, and ability to pay, on the other.’ Fonderson v. Lairap, 98 So. 3d 715, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…The Husband argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering him to make support and attorney fee payments which consume more than 80% of his net monthly income and in requiring him to pay all of the Wife’s temporary attorney’s fees. We agree and reverse the order in part and remand for further proceedings…Finally, as argued by the Husband, it appears that the circuit court may not have considered the effect of the court-ordered spousal support on the Wife’s ability to pay her temporary attorney’s fees, particularly in light of the retroactive support award totaling $22,730. See Crick, 78 So. 3d at 699 (‘A trial court must consider all assets and sources of income in an award for attorney’s fees.’). Accordingly, on remand the circuit court shall reconsider the Wife’s entitlement to temporary attorney’s fees.”

To speak with a Singer Island divorce attorney, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 651-7273.

On Behalf of Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. | Apr 11, 2014 | Alimony

In awarding alimony, the calculation of income from investments should reflect current reality. In Tarkow v. Tarkow, the Florida Court of Appeal stated that: “(WALLACE, Judge.) Based on claims by Stanley A. Tarkow (the Former Husband) that his financial circumstances had changed substantially and that Miriam R, Tarkow, n/k/a Katherine Kofler (the Former Wife), is in a supportive relationship, the circuit court entered an order that substantially reduced the Former Husband’s permanent periodic alimony payments. The Former Wife appeals the order, and the Former Husband cross-appeals. On the appeal, we affirm in part and reverse in part; we affirm on the cross-appeal… 

The circuit court also erred in using outdated information to calculate the Former Wife’s investment income. The final hearing before the GM was originally scheduled for April 12, 2011, but the parties could not conclude the matter within the time allotted on that day. Two months later, on June 16, 2011, the parties reconvened before the GM to complete the final hearing. At the continuation of the final hearing, the Former Wife proffered evidence that her investment accounts had been reduced in value in the amount of $61,146 during the period between the two sessions. Although the Former Husband did not dispute the accuracy of this evidence, he objected to its admission. The GM sustained the objection and refused to consider the updated information. As a result, the GM used incorrect information to calculate the Former Wife’s income from her investments. Thus the GM’s calculations substantially overstated the Former Wife’s investment income going forward. The GM’s calculations of the Former Wife’s income from her investments should have reflected current reality.”

To speak with an alimony attorney in Martin County, FL, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 328-1111.

In Florida, alimony is based on net income, not gross income. In Kingsbury v. Kingsbury the Florida Court of Appeal stated that in a divorce proceeding: “The ability to pay alimony should be based on the party’s net income. See Vanzant v. Vanzant, 82 So. 3d 991,993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that trial court erred by using figures that represented gross income rather than net income); Vega v. Vega, 877 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (noting that former spouse’s argument that the award should be based on gross income rather than net income was incorrect because “[i]n reality, the case law states that net income is the relevant benchmark”) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197,1202 (Fla. 1980);

Lambertini v. Lambertini, 817 So. 2d 942,943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Gandul v. Gandul, 696 So. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); de Armasv. de Armas, 471 So.2d 185,185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Parhamv. Parham, 385 So. 2d 107,108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)).”

Here, the only mention in the final judgment of Mr. Kingsbury’ s income, and thus his ability to pay alimony, was his gross income. This is error. In Vanzant, this court recently reversed and remanded an award of alimony, explaining that the figures used “reflect[ed] the gross income shown on the former husband’s amended financial affidavit, not his net income.” 82 So. 3d at 993 (emphasis in original). Although it appears that Mr. Kingsbury may have had the ability to pay $4,000 per month in alimony, it is impossible to know for certain without some indication of his net income. See McCants v. McCants, 984 So. 2d 678, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“The trial court did not explain how it arrived at a net income amount of $4500 per month, and based on the record before us, we are compelled to reverse and remand for the trial court to reconsider this issue.”).”

On Behalf of Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. | Jan 5, 2012 | Alimony