Articles Posted in Alimony
March 27, 2025
by SmartSites
In a recently decided alimony case captioned Barlow v. Barlow, the Florida Court of Appeal ruled that a trial court should utilize the most recent income figures available in calculating alimony and child support and not rely on past earnings. In this case the Husband appealed the trial court’s ruling concerning the calculation of alimony and child support and the division of marital assets. The Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court made a mistake in calculating the Husband’s bonus income. The Court reversed the lower court’s ruling and required the trial court to retry the case.
The Husband and Wife agreed on the amount of the Husband’s base salary at the time of the divorce in 2015. In calculating the Husband’s income, the trial court utilized the Husband’s bonus in 2013, rather than utilizing the Husband’s bonus in 2014. The Florida alimony statute requires courts to take into consideration all sources of income available to both parties in awarding alimony. The Florida child support statute requires courts to include bonus income in calculating child support.
Income from bonuses should be utilized in calculating alimony and child support when the bonuses are continuous and regular. Here the trial court used the Husband’s 2013 bonus in calculating support payments. The trial court utilized this amount because it was the last bonus that the Husband received prior to the date of the filing of the divorce. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court should have utilized Husband’s 2014 bonus, which was the most recent bonus that the Husband earned prior to the date of the trial. A party’s most current income, or income that is expected to be earned in the near future, should be used in calculating alimony and child support awards. Past income figures should not be utilized when the Court has access to current figures. In the case at bar, the Court incorrectly utilized bonus income figures from 2013, instead of using current income figures from 2014. The husband’s bonus in 2014 was significantly lower than in 2013. The Court held that the final judgment should reflect the fact that the husband’s income was reduced. The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court and instructed the trial court to recalculate alimony and child support.
Continue reading
Posted in:
Alimony
Tagged:
Alimony
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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.
Continue reading
Posted in:
Alimony
Tagged:
Alimony
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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.
Continue reading
Posted in:
Alimony
Tagged:
Alimony
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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.
Continue reading
Posted in:
Alimony
Tagged:
Alimony
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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.
Continue reading
Posted in:
Alimony
Tagged:
Alimony
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
An alimony case involving imputation of income was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Waldera v. Waldera. In this case, the husband and wife were married in 1999. At the time of their marriage, the wife held a bachelor’s degree in accounting. She worked as a fulltime bookkeeper at the husband’s law firm. When their only child was born, the husband and wife agreed that the wife would work part-time and would home school their child. The wife continued to work part time at her husband’s law firm until 2011. After 2011, the wife worked part-time as a bookkeeper for some private clients. In 2015, divorce proceedings were instituted.
In this appeal, the wife argued that the trial judge erred in its imputation of income to her. The Florida Court of Appeal agreed. In reaching its determination, the Court of Appeal pointed out that in order to impute income to a party, the trial judge must find that the party has the ability to earn more income than he or she is currently earning, and that he or she has deliberately refused to be employed at this higher earning capacity. A court must make a finding that a party failed to make his or her best efforts to earn more money. Income cannot be imputed based upon records that are over five years old. Additionally, courts may not impute income to a party that is greater than that party has historically earned, absent special circumstances. The party seeking to impute income must establish the range of salaries that are currently being paid for available employment opportunities in the area, based upon the employee’s qualifications, including their work history, education, and physical restrictions. Finally, a trial court is required to award significant deference to the parties’ decision that a spouse is to stay home in order to care for their children. This is especially so when the parties have established a course of conduct over a period of time.
To speak with a Wellington, Florida divorce attorney to discuss alimony, contact the Lane Law Firm, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.
Continue reading
