The controversial bill ending lifelong alimony was brought before the Senate on Tuesday night after about an hour of discussion in the Senate Rules Committee.
This time after repeated unsuccessful attempts to pass similar support reform measures in recent years, said Sarasota Republican Sen. Joe Gruters says his bill (SB1796) is an improvement over previous efforts. The measure would overturn the court-ordered permanent alimony and leave bridging, rehabilitation and permanent alimony for all future divorces.
The measure was passed by the Senate Rules Committee on Tuesday.
“What we’re doing is we’re going in there and creating the process so we can limit the litigation that’s in place,” Gruters said as he introduced his bill. “The point here is — in the run-up to new divorces — to limit litigation, empower both parents or both family members who are about to separate, and try to let them go with as much dignity and respect as possible. Divorce is devastating. Let’s make it less devastating by passing this law.”
The bill can be applied retrospectively to modifiable agreements, a move that has drawn opposition from public commentators and lawmakers. For alimony cases designated as non-modifiable in the marriage contract, the court cannot apply the bill retrospectively, Gruters said.
Opponents argue that cutting permanent maintenance would put those caring for children in compromising positions. Furthermore, they say the legislation aims only to help the main breadwinner and unfairly disadvantages the other person.
“It’s still retroactive,” said Barbara DeVane for the Florida National Organization for Women. “I plead with you on behalf of older women who have given up their careers to raise their children while their husbands have a career. They don’t get childcare and housekeeping benefits, and now they’re suddenly terrified of what will happen when their ex-husbands storm back into court to take what little they have from them.”
As in previous years, the bill met with opposition from several current child support recipients who feared the changes could alter their modifiable child support payments. Opponents also criticized the same timeshare presumption of the custody disputes bill.
The legislation would also remove the court’s ability to consider the adultery of either spouse when determining the amount of alimony.
One of Gruters and attached modification approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday night would provide parameters for the court to make determinations about the amount and duration of the alimony.
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.
Gruters claims that the amendment “allows permanent alimony payers to retire when they reach retirement age.”
“The whole goal for me was to create safety valves that exist,” Gruters said of his amendment. “Payees are protected end-to-end.”
But, The change drew criticism from some, including Novey, who said he had rolled back progress on 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.
Gruter’s bill died in the Senate Rules Committee last year. The House of Representatives voted 74 to 38 last year to pass the bill.
This year’s house version (HB1395), worn by Fort Myers Republican Rep. Jenna Personen-Mulicka. Both bills would go into effect in July.
Post Views:
0
Comments are closed.