The Florida Legislature passed an admirable reform of Florida child support and child custody laws during the last legislative session. But part of that law makes some ex-spouses worry about their future, and they deserve reassurance.
Prior to recent reforms, presiding judges could grant one of several forms: Bridge the Gap awards for two years or less; “Rehabilitative,” temporarily assisting an ex-spouse to resume or build a career; “Permanently” for a specified period of time, especially after a short- or medium-term marriage (as defined in Florida Alimony Act Section 61.08); and “permanently” when either party was not “financially able to meet the needs and necessities of life,” usually after a long marriage but also in shorter ones under exceptional circumstances.
But the modernization of this basic subsistence system was overdue. It was introduced when wives were largely dependent on their husbands for their income across the economic spectrum – many could not contract or obtain credit, let alone build a workforce. Today’s workplace allows women full-time employment, and many of them, even if they have children, have earning capacities that even exceed that of their husbands.
Henny Shomar is an attorney with the law firm of Tripp Scott.
Because of this increased economic independence, some proponents have argued that longer-term alimony payments result in recipient spouses having no incentive to take steps to support themselves. In addition, ex-spouses who paid alimony complained that they were unable to retire on their own terms, particularly since the Florida Supreme Court had introduced a presumption of 65 as a reasonable retirement age.
Then there is the primary goal of most clients: to bring the arduous divorce process to a speedy, fair, and predictable conclusion. This aim has been undermined both by the wide discretion of the judges, which often led to very different results in comparable cases, and by the lack of clarity as to the reasons for amending decrees. Previously, changes required a “material, substantial and unforeseen change in circumstances,” a provision that Florida courts described as “extraordinary burden,” remarriage, or the establishment of a largely undefined “supportive relationship.”
But now, after more than a decade of trials and three governor vetoes, the Florida Legislature has passed and Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that addresses the need for modernization and for more certainty and finality of the process and the consequences.
The most important step toward modernizing the new law was the elimination of permanent alimony for claims pending or filed on or after July 1. Meanwhile, the bill streamlines alimony provisions with formulas largely based on the length of marriage that limit, but do not entirely eliminate, court discretion in determining how long alimony payments are made.
The law also removes the burden that a change in circumstances must be “unpredictable,” and more clearly defines a “supportive relationship” as “the provision of financial or economic support equivalent to marriage,” and requires that alimony or child support be paid be modified or terminated in such cases. The bill also redefines the retirement age to reflect the Social Security Agency’s parameters – already at 62 – and allows for the inclusion of the usual retirement age in payer professions, as well as the statutory codification of other factors previously proposed by the Supreme Court that are relevant to the Determination could be taken into account possible exemption from maintenance claims.
And this is where the controversy arises. Many ex-spouses, especially older women who may have put their careers on hold to work full-time as housewives and are totally dependent on their ex-husbands’ payments, fear their accolades will be turned on their head and put them in the overthrow poverty. Others made concessions as part of settlements — “acquired” rights that DeSantis said could be “impaired” to justify an earlier veto.
Will such pre-existing dispositions, particularly the granting of permanent alimony, be subject to a retrospective change or not? A key factor in determining the final answer: Lawmakers rejected an amendment that specifically prohibits changes to existing decrees.
All of this means the matter must be settled by the courts, and vulnerable ex-spouses argue they are being thrown into a twilight zone of worry and uncertainty, defeating a central purpose of the reforms.
And they are quite right, quite literally, unless the legislature steps up again in its next session and provides the needed clarification, either by barring retrospective changes or by setting clearer and possibly stricter standards for setting aside long-term awards.
The Bottom Line: Florida has major, groundbreaking divorce reforms that largely reflect a need for the law to provide certainty and keep up with changing times. However, further adjustment may be needed to ensure the safety of ex-spouses.
Hollywood resident Henny Shomar is an attorney with the Broward-based law firm of Tripp Scott.
Comments are closed.