Alimony

ALIMONY
• PREMISE
• PRAGMATIC & PRACTICAL
• PROGNISTICATE
#2

PREMISE HISTORICAL / SOCIETAL
CODE OF HAMMURABI
SHE MAY
THEN MARRY THE MAN OF HER HEART.
#3

ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE
HUSBAND'S DUTY TO SUPPORT THE WIFE DURING A
MARRIAGE
PERMANENT ALIMONY
***AS DIVORCE DID NOT END THE MARRIAGE, THE HUSBAND'S DUTY TO
SUPPORT HIS WIFE REMAINED INTACT
#4

A DECREE OF ALIMONY SHALL RELEASE THE WIFE FROM THE
CONTROL OF HER HUSBAND AND SHE MAY USE HER ALIMONY AND ACQUIRE, USE
AND DISPOSE OF OTHER PROPERTY UNCONTROLLED BY HER HUSBAND
ORR V. ORR, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)
NO LONGER IS THE FEMALE DESTINED
SOLELY FOR THE HOME AND THE REARING OF THE FAMILY, AND ONLY THE MALE FOR THE
MARKETPLACE AND WORLD OF IDEAS
#5

#6
* 1492 – 2005 = 0; 2010 = 6; 2013 = 36; JUNE 26, 2015 = 50
** BY PROHIBITING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, THE STATE HAS MERELY DENIED
HOMOSEXUALS THE RIGHTS GRANTED TO MARRIED PARTNERS…BUT THE STATE HAS NOT
DENIED THESE INDIVIDUALS THEIR RIGHT … TO PRIVATELY COMMIT BY CONTRACT TO
SPEND THEIR MONEY AS THEY CHOOSE. THE STATE IS … MERELY RECOGNIZING THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE PROPERTY AND CONTRACT RIGHTS. POSIK V. LAYTON, 695
SO.2D 759 (FLA. 5TH DCA 1997).
*** IN OBERGEFELL V. HODGES, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), THE USSC RULED IN FAVOR
OF MARITAL EQUALITY, UNDER BOTH A DPC CLAIM AND AN EPC CLAIM ENTITLING
SAME-SEX SPOUSES TO THE “CONSTELLATION” OF RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND LEGAL
RECOURSE AS THEIR OPPOSITE-SEX SPOUSAL COUNTERPARTS.

HISTORICAL / SOCIETAL
*F.S. 61.001
*F.S. 61.071
*F.S. 61.08
*F.S. 61.09
*F.S.61.14(1)(A)&(1)(B)(1-3) – ALIMONY MODIFICATION/
TERMINATION (POST-JUDGMENT; NEW CIRCUMSTANCES; NEW
LOVERS)
#7

PRAGMATIC & PRACTICAL APPLICATION/AVOIDANCE
NOUSARI V. NOUSARI, 94 SO.3D 704 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2012).
MOTIE V. MOTIE, 132 SO.3D 1210 (FLA. 5TH DCA 2014)
CONWAY V. CONWAY, 111 SO.3D
925 (FLA. 1ST DCA 2013)
ONDREJACK V. ONDREJACK, 839 SO.2D 867 (FLA. 3RD
DCA 2003)
SCHRAM V. SCHRAM, 932 SO.2D 245, 249 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2005)
PIEDRA V. PIEDRA, 126 SO.3D 1104 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2012)
#9

ALIMONY AND SUIT MONEY PETITION OR BY MOTION
WELL FOUNDED REASONABLE SUM
DE GUTIERREZ V.
GUTIERREZ, 19 SO.3D 1110 (FLA. 2D DCA 2009)
FLA. R. APP. P. 9.600(C),
#10

THE COURT MAY GRANT
ALIMONY TO EITHER PARTY BRIDGE-THE-GAP, REHABILITATIVE,
DURATIONAL, OR PERMANENT
THE COURT MAY CONSIDER THE ADULTERY OF EITHER SPOUSE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEREOF
IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF ALIMONY, IF ANY, TO BE AWARDED.
MILLS V. JOHNSON, 147 SO.3D 1023 (FLA. 2D DCA 2014).
** APPELLATE COURT REVERSED DENIAL OF PERMANENT ALIMONY AWARD IN AN 18 YEAR MARRIAGE
WHERE THE H EARNED $177K AND W EARNED $109K AS TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT DID NOT CONTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO RUTAN V. RUTAN, 142 SO.3D 1 (FLA. 2D DCA 2014).
#11

SPECIFIC FACTUAL DETERMINATION
AS TO WHETHER EITHER PARTY HAS AN ACTUAL NEED FOR ALIMONY OR MAINTENANCE AND
WHETHER EITHER PARTY HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY ALIMONY OR MAINTENANCE
THE COURT SHALL
CONSIDER ALL RELEVANT FACTORS
* ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER ALIMONY AWARD IN EXCESS OF PAYOR’S ABILITY TO PAY. GRAY. V.
GRAY, 103 SO.3D 962 (FLA. 1ST DCA 2012).
** ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER ALIMONY AWARD IN EXCESS OF RECIPIENT’S NEEDS. CURRIER V.
CURRIER, 99 SO.3D 996 (FLA. 5TH DCA 2012).
#12

DEMONT V. DEMONT, 67 SO. 3D 1096, 1101 (FLA. 1ST DCA 2011).
****
ESAW V. ESAW, 965 SO.2D 1261, 1266 (FLA. 2D DCA 2007)
CANAKARIS V. CANAKARIS, 382 SO.2D 1197 (FLA. 1980)
ESAW, SUPRA.
#13

STANDARD OF LIVING
BEDDELL V. BEDDELL, 583 SO.2D 1005 (FLA.1991).
POLLOCK V. POLLOCK, 772 SO.2D 283 (FLA. 5TH DCA 1998)
GREEN V.
GREEN, 672 SO.2D (FLA. 4TH DCA 1996)
#14

DURATION
GALLINAR V. GALLINAR,
763 SO.2D 447 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2000)
VIGO V. VIGO, 15
SO.3D 619 (FLA.3D DCA 2009).
#15

C. AGE AND THE PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL CONDITION
ZEIGLER V. ZEIGLER, 635 SO.2D 50
(FLA. 1ST DCA 2010).
** PERMANENT ALIMONY AWARD AFFIRMED ON APPEAL WHERE WIFE SUFFERED DEPRESSION, DRUG
DEPENDENCY, AND VARIOUS PHYSICAL AILMENTS. CONLAN V. CONLAN, 43 SO.3D 931 (FLA. 4TH DCA
2010).
#16

D. FINANCIAL RESOURCES NONMARITAL AND THE
MARITAL
BOGGESS V. BOGGESS, 34 SO.3D 115 (FLA. 3D DCA 2010).
DREW V. DREW, 27 SO.3D 802 (FLA. DCA 2010).
BATSON V. BATSON, 821
SO.2D 1141 (FLA. 5TH DCA 2002)
GRIMM V. GRIMM, 58 SO.3D 428 (FLA. 1ST
DCA 2011).
#17

ZARYCKI-WEIG V. WEIG, 25 SO. 3D 573, 575 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2009)
KONSOULAS V. KONSOULAS, 904 SO. 2D
440, 444 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2005)
#18

EARNING CAPACITIES EDUCATIONAL LEVELS VOCATIONAL SKILLS
EMPLOYABILITY
SHAFER V. SHAFER, 45 SO.3D 494 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2010)
#19

F. CONTRIBUTION
KNOFF V. KNOFF, 751 SO.2D 167 (FLA. 2D DCA 2000)
KUVIN V. KUVIN, 442 SO. 2D 203 (FLA. 1983)
#20

RESPONSIBILITIES MINOR
CHILDREN
LAKIN V. LAKIN, 901 SO. 2D 186 (FLA. 4TH
DCA 2005).
#21

TAX TREATMENT AND CONSEQUENCES
RYKIEL V. RYKIEL, 838 SO. 2D 508 (FLA. 2003)
#22

H.
IRC SECTION 71(F)
SHARP V. COMMISSIONER, T.C. SUMMARY OPINION 2004-27, 2004 TAX CT.
#23

I. ALL SOURCES OF INCOME
INVESTMENTS OF ANY ASSET
ZOLD V. ZOLD, 911 SO.2D 1222 (FLA. 2005).
NIEDERMAN V. NIEDERMAN, 60
SO.3D 544 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2011).
#24

J. ANY OTHER FACTOR
YEAKLE V. YEAKLE, 12 SO.3D 884 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2009)
WILLIAMSON V. WILLIAMSON, 367 SO.2D 1016, 1019 (FLA. 1979).
#25

TO PROTECT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY, THE COURT MAY
ORDER ANY PARTY WHO IS ORDERED TO PAY ALIMONY
SOBELMAN V. SOBELMAN,
541 SO.2D 1153, 1154-55 (FLA. 1989) RUBERG V.
RUBERG, 858 SO.2D 1147 (FLA. 2D DCA 2003).
**S
RUBERG MASSAM V. MASSAM, 993 SO.2D 1022 (FLA. 2D DCA 2008).
#26

FIRST, THE METHOD BY WHICH THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS ARE TO BE PAID
RICHARDSON V. RICHARDSON, 900 SO.2D 656, 660 (FLA.2D DCA 2005).
ZANGARI V. CUNNINGHAM, 839 SO.2D 918, 920 (FLA. 2D DCA 2003)
SECOND, THE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CASE BAR
PAYTON V. PAYTON, 109
SO.3D 280 (FLA. 1ST DCA 2013)
ZVIDA V. ZVIDA, 103 SO.3D 1052 (FLA.4TH DCA 2013)
#27

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION
A SHORT-TERM MARRIAGE IS A MARRIAGE HAVING A DURATION OF LESS THAN 7
YEARS, A MODERATE-TERM MARRIAGE IS A MARRIAGE HAVING A DURATION OF GREATER
THAN 7 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 17 YEARS, AND LONG-TERM MARRIAGE IS A MARRIAGE
HAVING A DURATION OF 17 YEARS OR GREATER.
KNOFF V. KNOFF, 751 SO.2D 167
(FLA. 2D DCA 2000)
#28

BRIDGE-THE-GAP
LEGITIMATE
IDENTIFIABLE SHORT-TERM NEEDS MAY NOT EXCEED 2
YEARS
AN
AWARD OF BRIDGE-THE-GAP ALIMONY SHALL NOT BE MODIFIABLE IN AMOUNT OR
DURATION
. KATZ V.
KATZ, 90 SO.3D 909 (FLA. 2D DCA 2012).
**
BIKOWITZ V. BIKOWITZ, 104 SO.3D 1137 (FLA. 2D DCA 2012).
#29

REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY
SELF-SUPPORT
REDEVELOPMENT
ACQUISITION
SPECIFIC AND
DEFINED REHABILITATIVE PLAN INCLUDED AS A PART OF ANY ORDER
MODIFIED OR TERMINATED
61.14 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
UPON NONCOMPLIANCE UPON COMP
#30

ASKEGARD V. ASKEGARD, 524 SO.2D 736 (FLA. 1ST DCA
1988).
HORTON V. HORTON, 62 SO.3D
689 (FLA. 2D DCA 2011).
FRETCHER V. FRETCHER, 548 SO.2D 712
(FLA. 3D DCA 1989).
RICKENBACH V. KOSINSKI, 32 SO.3D 732 (FLA. 5TH DCA 2010)
#31

DURATIONAL ALIMONY MAY BE AWARDED WHEN PERMANENT PERIODIC
ALIMONY IS INAPPROPRIATE.
AMOUNT OF AN AWARD MODIFIED OR
TERMINATED BASED UPON A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
61.14 LENGTH
MAY NOT BE MODIFIED EXCEPT UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES AND MAY NOT EXCEED THE LENGTH OF THE MARRIAGE.
#32

DOGANIERO V. DOGANIERO, 106 SO.3D 75
(FLA. 2D DCA 2013).
BROEMER V. BROEMER, 109 SO.3D 284 (FLA. 1ST DCA 2013).
*** AFFIRMING AWARD OF DURATIONAL ALIMONY IN LONG TERM MARRIAGE WHERE TRIAL COURT CONSIDERED ALL
FACTORS IN (2) AND FOUND, “DURATIONAL ALIMONY WAS WARRANTED AND…NO OTHER FORM OF ALIMONY [WA]S
APPROPRIATE.” FICHTEL V. FICHTEL, 141 SO.3D 593 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2014).
LILLY V. LILLY, 113 SO.3D 155 (FLA. 5TH DCA 2013).
#33

PRAGMATIC & PRACTICAL APPLICATION/ AVOIDANCE
PERMANENT ALIMONY NEEDS AND NECESSITIES
LONG DURATION IF SUCH AN AWARD IS APPROPRIATE
MODERATE DURATION IF SUCH AN
AWARD IS APPROPRIATE BASED UPON CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
SHORT DURATION
IF THERE ARE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
NO OTHER FORM OF ALIMONY IS FAIR AND
REASONABLE
AN AWARD MAY BE MODIFIED OR TERMINATED BASED UPON A SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OR UPON THE EXISTENCE OF A SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIP IN
ACCORDANCE WITH S. 61.14.
#34

KENNEDY V. KENNEDY, 60 SO.3D 466 (FLA. 2D DCA 2011)
BREZAULT V. BREZAULT, NO. 4D15-2788 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2016)
BERGER V.
BERGER, NO. 4D15-364 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2016).
#35

(9) PAYOR LESS
NET INCOME RECIPIENT WRITTEN
FINDINGS EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
CLORE V. CLORE, 115 SO.3D 1100, 1104 (FLA. 5TH DCA 2013)
WALTERS V. WALTERS, 96 SO.3D 972 (FLA. 4TH DCA
2012).
CANAKARIS V. CANAKARIS, 382 SO.2D 1197 (FLA. 1980)
#36

PROGNOSTICATE LEGISLATIVE FUTURE
CS/CS/SB 718: FAMILY LAW – 2013
VETOED BY GOVERNOR (RETROACTIVE APPLICATION)
#38

2014
I BELIEVE OUR SYSTEM OF ALIMONY IS BROKEN IN THIS STATE AND MUST BE REFORMED
I AGREED TO SPONSOR ALIMONY REFORM LEGISLATION BECAUSE I
BELIEVE WE NEED A FAIR WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS VERY EMOTIONAL ISSUE
#39

CS/CS/SB 943: FAMILY LAW – 2015
DIED IN JUDICIARY
#40

CS/CS/SB 668: FAMILY LAW - 2016
VETOED BY GOVERNOR (50/50 PRESUMPTION)
#41

2016 – SB 668
* 61.08(1)(A)(1)(A-AA) – GROSS INCOME (TYPES)
* 61.08(1)(A)(2)(A-D) – GROSS INCOME DOES NOT INCLUDE (TYPES)
* 61.08 (2)(A)(B) – INITIAL FINDINGS (EACH PARTY’S MONTHLY GROSS INCOME + POTENTIAL
INCOME + INTEREST INCOME FROM ED. YEARS OF MARRIAGE)
* 61.08(3) – ALIMONY GUIDELINES
* (A) AMOUNT = LOW (.015 X YM) X (PG-RG) HIGH (.02 X YM) X (PG-RG)
* (B) DURATION = LOW (.25 X YM) HIGH (.75 X YM)
* 61.08 (4) – ALIMONY AWARD
* (A) 2 YEARS OR LESS – CLEAR AND CONVINCING NEED/ FAILURE TO AWARD INEQUITABLE
* (B) 2 YEARS OR MORE – COURT SHALL CONSIDER: 1-14 FACTORS.
#42

2016 – SB 668
*61.08(4)(C) – DEVIATION FROM GUIDELINES – AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL FACTORS, SPECIFIC
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF RELEVANT, PRESUMPTIVE AMOUNT INAPPROPRIATE OR INEQUITABLE.
*61.08 (6) – NOMINAL ALIMONY
* 61.08 (7) – TAXABILITY AND DEDUCTIBILITY OF ALIMONY
*61.08 (8) – MAXIMUM COMBINED AWARD
*61.08 (9) – SECURITY
*61.08 (11) – MODIFICATION
*61.14 (1)(A) – MODIFICATION – CHANGE IN INCOME/ (B)(1)SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIP/ (C)(1)
REMARRIAGE OF OBLIGOR/ (D)(1)ACTUAL AWARD
*61.192 - ADVANCING TRIAL
#43

• 1.5 YEAR MARRIAGE = ?
• 5 YEAR MARRIAGE / P $150,000 R $50,000
• (.015 X 5 YEARS) X $100,000 = $7,500 / 12 = $625.00
• (.020 X 5 YEARS) X 100,000 = $10,000 / 12 = $833.00
• (.25 X 5 YEARS) = 1.25 YEARS
• (.75 X 5 YEARS) = 3.75 YEARS
• 15 YEAR MARRIAGE / $100,000 DIFFERENTIAL
• $1,875 - $2,500 & 3.75 – 11.25 YEARS
• 25 YEAR MARRIAGE / $100,000 DIFFERENTIAL
• $2,500 - $3,333 & 5 – 15 YEARS
#44

$2,000 PER MONTH (24 MONTHS) IN BRIDGE-THE-GAP
$2,000 PER MONTH (10 YEARS) IN DURATIONAL ALIMONY
BREZAULT V.
BREZAULT, NO. 4D15-2788 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2016)
2016 – SB 668
P - $150,000 (ESTIMATED) / R - $73,000 (IMPUTED) / 22 YEAR MARRIAGE
AMOUNT : $1,925.00 - $2,566.00 MONTHLY
DURATION: 5-15 YEARS
#45

DURATIONAL ALIMONY (10 YEARS) IN SUM OF $4,500 MONTHLY
BERGER V. BERGER, NO. 4D15-364 (FLA. 4TH DCA 2016)
2016 – SB 668
P - $205,704 (ACTUAL) / R - $39,000 (IMPUTED) / 18 YEAR MARRIAGE
AMOUNT : $3,735.00 - $4,980.00 MONTHLY
DURATION: 4.5-13.5 YEARS
#46

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME & CONSIDERATION
965.914.7866
CWR@CWRLAW.NET

Alimony

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Alimony