Articles Posted in Modification Of Alimony
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
The parties married in 1970 and were divorced in 2004. When the divorce was granted the husband had a good job in Louisiana. The court awarded alimony payments which were approximately thirty-five percent of this gross income. When he was over sixty years of age, the husband became unemployed. He looked for a job without success until January 2012. The husband accepted a job in Naples, Florida, where the compensation was commission based. He experienced a reduction in his income which was more than fifty percent of what he earned at the time of his divorce. At the time of the modification hearing, the payments for alimony and life insurance exceeded seventy percent of the husband’s monthly income. The Court of Appeal stated that the party requesting a modification must present evidence necessary for the lower court to make the determinations that are essential for relief.
The trial court needs to make factual determinations about the nature and extent of the change in financial circumstances. It needs to make a factual decision about whether the change was anticipated at the time of the final judgment. Finally the court needs to decide whether the change is substantial and whether the change was sufficient, material, permanent, and involuntary. A severe reduction in income for nearly a year, with no end in sight is considered to be permanent for purposes of granting a modification.
If you have questions about modification of alimony in Jupiter, Florida, contact at Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
In a modification of alimony case, a parties’ retirement does not mandate the termination of alimony payments. Retirement just provides an opportunity to revisit alimony recipient’s needs and alimony payor’s ability to pay. In a case captioned Purin v. Purin the Florida Court of Appeal had a case before it involving a thirty-year marriage. A thirty-year marriage is considered to be a long term marriage. The trial court awarded durational alimony instead of permanent alimony. The Court of appeal reversed this award. The trial court refused the wife’s request for permanent alimony and awarded her durational alimony based on the fact that the husband was going to retire at age sixty-five. The Court of Appeal stated that the starting point in every alimony determination is need and ability to pay. In this case the wife demonstrated her need and the husband’s ability to pay. However the trial court refused to award permanent periodic alimony based upon the fact that the husband was going to retire in ten years. The Court of Appeal said that the trial court should not have speculated as to what the parties’ needs and ability to pay were going to be in ten years. The Court stated that trial courts are not permitted to consider future events in setting current alimony due to the uncertainty surrounding the future. The appellate court pointed out that a payor’s retirement does not require the termination of an award of alimony. A parties’ retirement just allows a trial court to look at the parties’ then current ability to pay and their needs.
The Court of Appeal also pointed out that in a modification of alimony case, durational alimony may be extended in exceptional circumstances where there is a need for continued alimony. The Court of Appeal reversed the lower courts finding that the wife could not obtain an extension of her durational alimony award.
If you have questions to ask a divorce attorney in Wellington, Florida, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 363-3400.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
A Modification of Alimony case was recently decided by the Florida Court of Appeal in a case captioned Judy v. Judy. In this case the Former Husband sought modification of his alimony obligation. The amount of Former Wife’s alimony was previously agreed to in a Marital Settlement Agreement. The Former Husband and Former Wife were married for 26 years. The Former Husband was the primary wage earner, and the Former Wife stayed home to raise the parties’ two children. Prior to the Final Hearing, the parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement. The Marital Settlement Agreement stated that the Former Husband would pay 8 years of durational alimony to the Former Wife. The Marital Settlement Agreement also stated that the Former Husband’s involuntary loss of employment would be considered to be a substantial change of circumstances for purposes of modification of alimony. By the time that the Final Hearing took place, the Former Husband was involuntarily unemployed. The trial court enforced the Marital Settlement Agreement, however, it permitted the Former Husband to institute an action for modification of alimony. Former Husband brought an action for modification of alimony. However, Former Husband dismissed this claim when he found employment. Five years later, Former Husband again became unemployed and brought this action for modification. Although Former Husband regained employment, he pursued his claim for modification of alimony based upon the fact that his current income was less than it was at the time of the Final Hearing and because the Former Wife had not obtained employment subsequent to the entry of the Final Judgment.
A General Magistrate granted Former Husband’s Supplemental Petition for Modification of Alimony based upon imputation of minimum wage income to the Former Wife. The General Magistrate found that the Former Wife had made no attempt to obtain employment after the divorce, and found that it was therefore appropriate to impute income to her. The Trial Court adopted the General Magistrate’s recommendations.
The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the Trial Court’ ruling and held that it erred in imputing income to the Former Wife. The Florida Court of Appeal pointed out that in imputing income to a payor, the trial court is required to ascertain the payee’s occupational qualifications, their work history and the current job market in the area where the parties live. However, since the terms of the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement: (i) did not require the Former Wife to obtain employment, (ii) stated that the terms of the alimony obligation were non-modifiable, and (iii) did not indicate that the parties intended to impute income to the Former Wife if she did not become employed, the Florida Court of Appeal refused to impute income to the Former Wife and denied the Former Husband’s Supplemental Petition for Modification of Alimony.
Continue reading
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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
March 19, 2025
by SmartSites
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
