After years of unsuccessful negotiations to change Florida’s divorce laws, Gov. Ron DeSantis has vetoed recent efforts by the Republican-led Legislature to end permanent child support payments.
With DeSantis’ veto on Friday, the measure (SB1796) marks the third proposal vetoed by a Republican Florida governor in the past decade. Although most Republicans subsequently rallied in support of this year’s package repeated unsuccessful attempts To pass similar support reform measures, DeSantis wrote in his veto letter that the Legislature’s proposal was unconstitutional.
“If (SB 1796) were to become law and apply retrospectively, as the legislature intended, it would affect unconstitutionally acquired rights under certain pre-existing prenuptial agreements,” DeSantis wrote in his veto letter.
The bill, which sponsor and Republican Sarasota Sen. Joe Gruters advertised as an improvement over previous efforts, would have done away with court-ordered permanent alimony, leaving bridging, rehabilitative, and permanent alimony for all future divorces. Republican Representative from Fort Myers Jenna Personen-Mulickaguided legislation through the House.
“Divorce is devastating for everyone, but the process is most devastating for the families involved,” Gruters said in a statement to Florida Politics. “The only winners are the lawyers and professionals who benefit from the misery of others. As a CPA, I see it happening all the time and the process needs to be corrected so that families retain more of the wealth they had when the process started.”
“Very disappointed in the veto, especially after 35 meetings with both sides and the fairest and best alimony bill to be tabled and voted on by legislators in over 10 years,” he continued.
Two measures enshrined in the legislation were the subject of most debates during this year’s legislative session: a 50:50 time-share presumption and the elimination of permanent alimony for previous, modifiable agreements.
Before and after the legislature passed the measure near party lines in March, activists on both sides of the issue lobbied the legislature and DeSantis to torpedo the legislation.
In vetoing the bill, DeSantis sided with the Florida Bar Association’s family law division, which begged the governor to block the bill because of the controversial provisions.
The Chair of the Section Phillip Warenbergand its immediate past chairman, Heather Apicella, released a joint statement thanking DeSantis for the veto. Divorce and the resulting custody issues are very traumatic for everyone involved, they said.
“Since the beginning of the 2022 Legislative Session, we have raised concerns about the retrospective effects of Senate Act 1796. If this law had been signed, it would have turned thousands upon thousands of settlements on their head, courts would have defaulted, and the lives of many Floridians would have been up in the air,” they continued. “We thank Gov. Ron DeSantis for vetoing this measure and for his understanding of the bad precedent that retroactivity of the bill would have set for completed contracts in the state of Florida.”
The bill would have established an equal time-share presumption in child custody disputes. Critics throughout the measure argued that the presumption was not in the child’s best interests. representative Emily Slosberg Kinga Palm Beach Democrat and family law attorney, said the presumption will “create a procedural hurdle that self-represented litigants will have to overcome.”
However, proponents of the same time-sharing presumption said it would only provide the same conditions for parents entering the courtroom.
Over the course of the committee’s hearings, opponents argued that cutting permanent maintenance would put those caring for children in compromising positions. Furthermore, they argued that the legislation should only benefit the main breadwinner and unfairly disadvantage the other person.
The legislation would also remove the court’s ability to consider the adultery of either spouse when determining the amount of alimony.
The bill was amended several times during the legislative process.
An overhaul modification submitted by Gruters and submitted approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee changed the legislation to provide the court with parameters to make determinations about the amount and duration of alimony payments.
The change would also allow alimony payers to reduce payments if they wish to retire, while protecting beneficiaries deemed vulnerable.
The amendment would require the debtor to file a notice of termination and intent to terminate maintenance with the court and recipient. If the payer continues to work and earn income despite reaching retirement age, alimony payments would continue until he or she actually retires and active income is reduced by 50% of pre-retirement levels under the amendment.
However, this change was met with criticism. Family Law Attorney shannon New, representative of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said it was a regression in what was progress in this year’s legislation. She said the pension scheme speaks for old agreements and “retroactively amends those agreements.”
Currently, long-term alimony is subject to change at the judge’s discretion. A 1992 Florida Supreme Court ruling determined that retirement is considered a change in circumstances that may modify maintenance.
Kelly Hayes of Florida Politics contributed to this report.
Comments are closed.