Within the past few years, Florida’s alimony laws have undergone substantial changes. Gone is permanent alimony, which has been replaced by durational alimony. In this article, we’re going to discuss a case related to an alimony award. The former husband appealed the award claiming that the trial court abused its discretion when awarding durational alimony after a long-term marriage. The case is important because it illustrates the application of new legislation concerning alimony in Florida Statutes § 61.08(8).
Background of the case
In this case, the parties were married for 50 years before they sought a divorce, which classifies their marriage as “long term” under Florida’s rules. At the time of the final hearing, the ex-husband was 78 years old and living on Social Security benefits and pensions totaling approximately $3,824 a month. The ex-wife was 76, blind, and living on her Social Security benefits of approximately $1,228 a month. The trial court determined that a reasonable monthly needs figure for the ex-wife would be $2,477, while the ex-husband had a monthly surplus of $949.
Throughout the dissolution of the relationship, the court awarded the former wife a meager sum of $500 per month in durational alimony, which is remarkably lower than the amount she would have needed to cover her needs. She did not receive retroactive alimony or attorney fees. The trial judge also rebuked the former wife for using her funds to purchase housing when the divorce case went to trial, referring to it as “irresponsible” and basing a decision on it.
Under the modern Florida statute concerning alimony, a court can order durational alimony to provide economic support to a spouse after a divorce on the basis of need and the paying spouse’s ability to pay. Although permanent alimony is no longer available as a practical means of providing long-term support, durational alimony is now the method of choice that is generally limited to some percentage of the length of the marriage.
The appeal
On appeal, the Fourth DCA agreed with the former wife that an award of $500 per month was an abuse of discretion in light of the statutory scheme. The appellate court reasoned that, because of the trial court’s findings, the former husband could have afforded to pay a substantially greater amount of around $900 per month (35% of the income differential), without encroaching on his property or jeopardizing his financial stability. In this manner, the former wife could have still been facing a small gap, but it would have been more in keeping with the statutory scheme based on her needs.
The appellate court stated that the trial court erred when it shortchanged the former wife who had demonstrated a need and a lack of ability to support herself, while the former husband could afford to pay. Therefore, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court to award alimony as required under § 61.08(8).
Talk to a Tampa, FL, Divorce Lawyer Today
Westchase Law, P.A., represents the interests of Tampa residents during their divorce. Call our Tampa family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.
Source:
supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2452557/opinion/Opinion_2023-3079.pdf