After years of unsuccessful negotiations to change Florida's divorce laws, Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed the Republican-led House's latest attempt to eliminate permanent alimony payments.
With DeSantis' veto on Friday, the measure (SB 1796) is the third proposal vetoed by a Republican Florida governor in the last decade. Although most Republicans united afterward to support this year's package repeated unsuccessful attempts To pass similar alimony reform measures, DeSantis wrote in his veto letter that the legislature's proposal was unconstitutional.
“If (SB 1796) were to become law and become retroactive as the Legislature intended, it would unconstitutionally impair acquired rights under certain pre-existing marital agreements,” DeSantis wrote in his veto letter.
The bill sponsored by the Republican Senator from Sarasota. Joe Gruters Promoted as an improvement on previous efforts, the law would have eliminated court-ordered permanent alimony and left bridging, rehabilitation and permanent alimony payments for all future divorces. Republican Representative from Fort Myers. Jenna Persons-Mulicka shepherded the legislation through the House of Representatives.
“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 profit from the misery of others. As an accountant, I see this happening all the time and the process needs to be sorted out so that families retain more of the wealth they had at the start of the process.”
“Very disappointed in the veto, especially after 35 meetings with both sides and the fairest and best alimony bill presented and passed by the Legislature in over 10 years,” he continued.
Two measures included in the legislation were the subject of most debate during this year's legislative session: a 50-50 timeshare presumption and the elimination of permanent alimony in prior, modifiable agreements.
Before and after the measure was passed by the legislature near party lines In March, activists on both sides of the issue pushed lawmakers and DeSantis to torpedo the legislation.
In vetoing the bill, DeSantis sided with the Florida Bar's Family Law Section, which implored the governor to reject the bill because of its controversial provisions.
The chairman of the section, Philip Wartenbergand its immediate predecessor, Heather Apicella, released a joint statement thanking DeSantis for the veto. The divorce and the resulting custody issues were very traumatic for everyone involved, they said.
“Right at the start of the 2022 Legislative Session, we raised concerns about the retroactive effects of Senate Bill 1796. Had this law been enacted, it would have upended thousands upon thousands of settlements, created backlogs in the courts, and thrown the lives of many Floridians into turmoil,” they continued. “We thank Governor Ron DeSantis for his veto of 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-sharing presumption in custody disputes. Critics on the other side of the measure argued that the adoption was not in the best interests of the child. Rep. Emily Slosberg Kinga Palm Beach Democrat and family law attorney, said the presumption will “create a procedural legal hurdle that self-represented litigants must overcome.”
But supporters of adopting equal time sharing said it would simply ensure equal rights for parents entering the courtroom.
During the committee's hearings, opponents argued that cutting permanent support would put those caring for children in a compromising position. In addition, they argued that the legislation only aims to benefit the primary breadwinner and unfairly disadvantage the other person.
The law would also deprive the court of the ability to take into account the adultery of one of the spouses when determining the amount of maintenance.
The bill was amended several times during the legislative process.
An overhaul amendment submitted by Gruters and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee amended the legislation to provide parameters for the court to make decisions on the amount and duration of maintenance.
The change would also allow alimony payers to reduce their payments if they want to retire, while protecting those deemed vulnerable.
The change would require the alimony obligor to file with the court and the recipient a notice of retirement and intent to terminate the alimony. If the payer continues to work and earn income despite reaching retirement age, alimony payments would continue until his actual retirement and active income would be reduced by 50% of the pre-retirement level, the amendment says.
However, this amendment was met with criticism. Family law attorney Shannon Novey, representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said it reviewed progress on this year's legislation. She said the pension arrangements refer to old arrangements and “retroactively change those arrangements”.
Currently, long-term alimony can be changed at the discretion of a judge. A 1992 Florida Supreme Court ruling found that retirement is considered a change in circumstances that can affect support.
___
Kelly Hayes of Florida Politics contributed to this report.
Post views: 0
Comments are closed.