Published on: | by

In a divorce proceeding involving alimony, a spouse claiming income should be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed spouse must show that the unemployed or underemployed spouse is employable and that jobs are available. In order to determine the amount of income to impute, the Court must consider the spouses’ recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings in community for the class of jobs available. In making an alimony award, the trial court is to utilize the prevailing income in the community to impute income to the payor and not income that could be earned by the payor from a relocation. In Broga v. Brogathe Florida Court of Appeal recently stated that income is imputed to an unemployed or underemployed individual if such unemployment or underemployment is found by the court to be voluntary. If the trial court finds that a person’s unemployment or underemployment is voluntary, the probable earnings level of the payor should be determined based upon his or her recent work history, his or her occupational qualifications, and the prevailing earning level in the community in which the payor lives.

The prevailing income in the community in which the payor lives, not income that could have been earned if the payor relocated to another community, is to be used by the Court to establish the appropriate amount of imputed income for purposes of making an award of alimony.

To speak with a Jupiter, Florida divorce attorney about alimony questions that yo may have, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 651-7273.

Published on: | by

In a Florida paternity proceeding involving Father’s rights, in order for the court to require a Father to pay life insurance to secure a child support obligation, the trial court must make certain written findings. Fla. Stat. 61.13(1)(c) states that: “To the extent necessary to protect an award of child support, the court may order the obligor to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy or a bond, or to otherwise secure the child support award with any other assets which may be suitable for that purpose.” In Velaga v. Gudapati, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated that in determining whether to require a Father to purchase life insurance to secure the payment of child support, under Florida Statute § 61.13(1)(c), the trial court must make findings concerning the cost of the insurance. The trial court must also make findings concerning the Father’s ability to pay for the insurance.

Finally, the trial court must find that special circumstances exist that would necessitate the purchase of life insurance.

To speak with a North Palm Beach Father’s rights attorney, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.

Published on: | by

The pending Florida Alimony Reform Bill was recently revised in the Florida Senate. The original version of the bill was replaced by a committee substitute. The revised bill creates new alimony guidelines. In calculating alimony, the Court is to first calculate the amount of each party’s monthly gross income. Included in a party’s monthly gross income are the actual income that a party earns and the potential income that a party could earn. Additionally, included in a party’s monthly gross income are the actual income that a party earns from nonmarital property and marital assets distributed to that party, as well as potential income that a party could earn from nonmarital property and marital assets distributed to that party. In calculating the difference between the parties’ monthly gross income, the income of the party seeking alimony is be subtracted from the income of the other party. If this is a negative number, the presumptive alimony amount is $0.

The legislation in the Florida Senate creates a presumptive range for the duration that alimony is to be paid and a presumptive range for the amount of alimony that is to be paid. The low end of the presumptive range for the amount of alimony that is to be paid is to be paid is calculated by using the following formula: (0.015 x the years of marriage) x the difference between the monthly gross incomes of the parties. The high end of the presumptive range for the amount of alimony that is to be paid is calculated by using the following formula: (0.020 x the years of marriage) x the difference between the monthly gross incomes of the parties. In calculating the presumptive alimony amount range, twenty (20) years of marriage is used to calculate the low end and the high end for marriages of twenty (20) years or more. If a court establishes the duration of the alimony award at fifty (50%) percent or less of the length of the marriage, the court shall use the actual years of the marriage, up to a maximum of twenty-five (25) years, to calculate the high end of the presumptive alimony amount range. The duration of a marriage is determined from the date of the marriage until the date of the filing of the divorce.

The low end of the presumptive range for the duration that alimony is to be paid is calculated by using the following formula: 0.25 x the years of marriage. The high end of the presumptive range for the duration that alimony is to be paid is calculated by using the following formula: 0.7 5 x the years of marriage.

Continue reading

Published on: | by

A Petition for alimony or termination of alimony may be filed by an alimony obligor based upon his or her actual retirement, under the new alimony reform bill that was recently introduced in the Florida House of Representatives.  In order for there to be a termination or modification of alimony, the following circumstances must occur: (i) the paying spouse must have reached the age for eligibility to receive full Social Security retirement benefits and have retired, or (ii) the paying spouse must have reached the customary age for retirement for his or her occupation and must have retired from that occupation.

If an alimony obligor voluntarily retires before reaching either of the ages described above, the court shall determine whether the obligor’s retirement is reasonable based upon a consideration of the obligor’s: (i) age, (ii) health, (iii) motivation for retirement, and (iv) the financial impact on the alimony recipient. Upon a finding that the payor’s retirement is reasonable, there is a rebuttable presumption that an existing alimony obligation shall be modified or terminated.

The court shall modify or terminate the alimony obligation, or make a determination regarding whether the rebuttable presumption has been overcome, based upon the following factors that currently apply to the parties: (i) the age of the parties, (ii) the health of the parties, (iii) the assets and liabilities of the parties, (iv) the earned or imputed income of the parties, (v) the ability of the parties to maintain part-time or full-time employment, and (iv) any other factors that the court considers to be relevant.

Continue reading

Published on: | by

The modification of alimony as a result of cohabitation and the entry into a supportive relationship was recently addressed as part of the Florida Alimony Reform Legislation that was introduced in the 2015 session of the Florida House of Representatives.

Under the proposed legislation, the court may reduce alimony or terminate alimony when: (i) a supportive relationship exists or has existed after the entry of the final judgment of divorce and (ii) a supportive relationship exists or has existed in the year preceding the filing of the request for the modification of alimony or termination of support.

The trial court is directed to utilize the following factors to determine whether cohabitation or the entry into a supportive relationship warrants a modification or termination of alimony: (i) whether the parties have held themselves out as a married couple by using the same last name, using a common mailing address, referring to each other by terms such as my husband or my wife, or otherwise conducting themselves in a manner that evidences a permanent supportive relationship; (ii) the duration of time that the parties have resided together; (iii) whether the parties have pooled their income or assets; (iv) whether one party has supported the other; (v) whether one party has performed valuable services for the other; (vi) whether one party has performed valuable services for the other parties’ employer or company; (vii) whether the parties have worked together to create or enhance anything of value; (viii) whether the parties both contributed to the purchase of property; (ix) whether the parties have an express agreement regarding property sharing and support; (x) whether the parties have an implied agreement regarding property sharing and support; (xi) whether the parties have provided support to each other’s children; (xii) whether the paying spouse failed to complied with his/her court ordered obligations and whether this failure was a significant factor in the establishment of the supportive relationship; and (xiii) the extent to which the recipient spouse provides caretaking to a close relative with whom the recipient spouse resides or receives caretaking from a close relative with whom the recipient resides.

Continue reading

Published on: | by

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.

Continue reading

Published on: | by

In a Modification of Child Custody & Visitation proceeding, Courts are required to keep in mind the fact that a parent has a constitutionally protected right to a meaningful relationship with his or her children and timesharing privileges should not be denied to either parent as long as the parent conducts himself or herself, while in the presence of the children, in a manner which will not adversely affect the children. In Fay v. Fay, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated that in order for any restrictions or limitations on custody and visitation to be put into effect by the court, there must be there must be competent, substantial evidence in the record that these restrictions are in the best interests of the children before those restrictions will be sustained. It is the court’s responsibility to ensure that an appropriate relationship is maintained between parents and their children, and that responsibility cannot be abdicated to any parent or expert. The trial court cannot delegate its authority to another person to rule on the custody and visitation details. A parent’s visitation rights may not be conditioned on the payment of the parent’s financial obligations.

In Fay v. Fay, the Florida Court of Appeal went on to state that when a court exercises its discretion to reduce or eliminate custody or visitation, the court must set forth specific steps a parent Modification of Child Custody & Visitation must take to reestablish time-sharing in order to let the parent know what is expected of him or her. Courts have an obligation to identify concrete steps in the final judgment that the parent must take to reestablish time-sharing.

To speak with a divorce attorney in Jupiter, Florida contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.

Continue reading

Published on: | by

Modification of child support in Florida was recently explained in Arquette v. Rutter.  In Arquette v. Rutter the Florida Court of Appeal stated: “This court recently explained the circumstances, under the UIFSA, in which a Florida court may modify a child support order issued in another state: [A]s is the case here, when not all of the parties reside in Florida, a Florida court may only modify the order under one of the following circumstances: 1. After notice and hearing the tribunal finds that a. the child, individual obligee, and obligor do not reside in the issuing state; b. the petitioner seeks modification and is not a Florida resident; and c. the Florida tribunal has personal jurisdiction over the respondent. 2. The tribunal finds that it has personal jurisdiction over an individual party or the child and that all of the individual parties have filed a consent in the issuing tribunal to the Florida tribunal’s modifying the support order and assuming continuing exclusive jurisdiction over it.

Trissler v. Trissler, 987 So. 2d 209, 211-12 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing § 88.6111(1), Fla. Stat.). “The FFCCSOA is virtually identical to the UIFSA.” Id. at 210.

Here, neither the parents nor the child live in California. California has, therefore, lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the FFCCSOA.See PuIkkinenv.Pulkkinen, l27 So.3d 738, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “[California’s] loss of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, however, does not automatically confer jurisdiction on a Florida court to modify [California’s] child support order.” Id. at 743-44 (citing Bowman v. Bowman, 917 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)). Father is a resident of Florida and, therefore, may not petition to modify the child support order under section 88.6111.”

Continue reading

Published on: | by

To modify a division of property and assets, there must be a specific reservation of jurisdiction in the final judgment to make a later adjudication of property rights. In Daoud v. Daoud the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: “Dora S. Daoud, the former wife, raises four issues in this appeal of a contempt order resulting from her failure to comply with the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Khader Daoud, the former husband. We find merit in her challenge of the trial court’s modification of property rights previously adjudicated in the dissolution judgment, and reverse and remand on that issue. We affirm without comment the balance of the appealed order.

Absent appropriate pleadings by the former husband, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to alter or modify the property rights awarded to the former wife in the dissolution judgment. Work v. Provine, 632 So. 2d 1119,1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Generally speaking, in the absence of a specific reservation of jurisdiction to make a later adjudication of property rights, a lower court does not have jurisdiction to modify property rights after an adjudication of those rights has been made in a judgment of dissolution.”). Further, the general reservation of jurisdiction for the enforcement of its dissolution judgment does not empower a trial court to address or redistribute vested property between the parties. Id.; Fort v. Fort, 95l So.2d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Based on our review of the record, the former husband failed to properly plead for modification of the real property distribution contained in the dissolution judgment, and the trial court failed to specifically reserve jurisdiction to alter the prior distribution of property.”

To speak with a divorce attorney in North Palm Beach, Florida, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 651-7273.

Published on: | by

Modification of Out of State Order in Divorce Proceedings in Palm Beach County, FL

In a divorce proceeding seeking the modification of an out of state court order, a court may modify a child support order that was issued in another state under certain specific circumstance. In Arquette v. Rutter, the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: “This court recently explained the circumstances, under the UIFSA, in which a Florida court may modify a child support order issued in another state:

[A]s is the case here, when not all of the parties reside in Florida, a

Continue reading