Palm Beach Florida Divorce & Family Law Blog

In order to determine whether a voluntary retirement is reasonable, Florida trial courts are required to consider the age of the payor, the payor’s health, and the payor’s motivation for retirement. Additionally, Florida trial courts are required to consider the type of work that is performed by the payor and the age at which other people who are engaged in the same type of work normally retire. Sixty-five is the presumptive age of retirement in Florida

In a recently decided alimony case captioned Tanner v. Tanner, the Husband appealed the trial court’s order denying his Supplemental Petition for Modification of his divorce decree. The parties were divorced in January 2016. The final judgment of dissolution required the Husband to pay permanent periodic alimony to the Wife. In September 2018, the Husband filed a Supplemental Petition to Modify the divorce decree in which he sought to eliminate or reduce the amount of his alimony payments.

In the Husband’s Supplemental Petition for Modification of Alimony, the Husband stated that his employer terminated his employment, and that his medical condition precluded him from finding similar employment.  The trial court denied the Husband’s Supplemental Petition for Modification of Alimony based upon the fact that it found the Husband’s retirement at age 64 to be unreasonable. In his appeal, the Husband argued that his retirement was reasonable based on his age and failing health.

In order to impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed spouse, the party seeking to impute income must prove that there are current and available employment opportunities for which the spouse is qualified.  The spouse’s employment potential and probable earnings are based upon the spouse’s recent work history, occupational qualifications and the prevailing earnings level in the community.

In a case captioned Douglas v. Douglas, the husband appealed several of the rulings that the trial court made in the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.  The parties were married for eight years.  They were the parents of two children.  The wife was a stay-at-home mother, who took care of the parties’ children during the course of the marriage.  She did not work outside of the marital home during the marriage.  After the parties separated, the wife unsuccessfully applied for over thirty jobs during the parties’ separation.

The husband was a professional basketball player. During his career, he played for the New York Knicks, Houston Rockets, Sacramento Kings, Golden State Warriors and the Miami Heat.  Recently, the husband played on a number of European teams.  The wife filed the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.

Alimony payments may be reduced or terminated when a former spouse enters into a supportive relationship.  The payor bears the burden to prove that a supportive relationship exists.  Some of the factors that Florida courts assess in determining whether a supportive relationship exists are as follows:

First, whether the recipient and the cohabiting party have held themselves out as a married couple.

Second, the amount of time that the parties have resided together in a permanent residence.

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.

Florida’s alimony statute requires courts to consider the standard of living that was established by the parties throughout the course of their marriage.  Its purpose is to provide for the needs and necessities of life for the recipient spouse as they were established during the course of the parties’ marriage.  It is one of eleven statutory factors that Florida Courts are required to consider in awarding alimony.

In a recently decided case captioned Morgan v. Morgan, the Florida Court of Appeal ruled that the size of an alimony award is based upon the standard of living that was established by the parties during the course of the marriage, and not the parties’ postseparation lifestyle.

In Morgan v. Morgan, the husband appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.  He challenged the trial court’s alimony award and the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets.  The Florida Court of Appeal reversed both of the trial court’s rulings on these issues.

In an alimony case captioned Speigner v. Speigner, the parties were married for almost twenty (20) years.  Both parties worked during the course of the marriage.  The Husband had the larger income.  The Wife worked, raised the parties’ children and ran the household.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that the Wife had a need for support and the former husband had the ability to pay.  The court stated that the Wife had significant business acumen and found that both the Husband and the Wife had the capacity to earn additional income. The trial court awarded the Wife eight years of durational alimony.

The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling.  In reversing the lower court’s ruling the appellate court pointed out that in Florida, a long-term marriage is a marriage that exceeds seventeen years.  There is a rebuttable presumption that permanent alimony will be awarded following a long-term marriage.  This presumption can only be rebutted if there is proof that after termination of the alimony payments the recipient spouse has the capacity to support him or herself at the marital standard of living.  Durational alimony is only appropriate if the court finds that the recipient spouse does not have an ongoing need for support on a permanent basis.  In order to justify an award of durational alimony following a long-term marriage, a court must find that the recipient spouse is capable of attaining a level of self-support that is commensurate with the marital standard of living at the time that the durational alimony expires.