Lawmakers have approved a controversial bill that would eliminate permanent alimony after the House voted 74-42 on Wednesday afternoon. Now the legislation is on its way to the governor's office.
The House of Representatives voted on the Senate version of the law (SB 1796), funded by Sarasota Republican Sen. Joe Gruters, after repeated unsuccessful attempts have adopted similar measures for maintenance reform in recent years. The Senate passed the bill in one last Friday 21-16 Poll.
The bill that Gruters promoted as An improvement over previous efforts would eliminate court-ordered permanent alimony and leave bridge, rehabilitation, and permanent alimony payments in place for all future divorces. Republican Representative from Fort Myers. Jenna Persons-Mulickawho sponsored the House version of the bill (HB 1395), submitted the bill to the House of Representatives.
“When I passed this bill and decided to work on this emotional, yet critical issue for so many families across our state, I did so knowing that the work I did built on the work that so many had previously done. People-Mulicka said. She described the bill as “the fairest and most equitable policy that protects our families and children.”
Two measures included in the legislation have been the subject of the most debate: a 50-50 time-sharing presumption and the elimination of permanent alimony in prior, modifiable agreements.
The Florida Bar's family law section also asked the governor of Florida. Ron DeSantis to veto the bill because of these controversial provisions, declaring that the measures “will have a serious impact on existing and outstanding alimony payments and will impact court-approved prenuptial agreements without cause.”
“The Family Law Section of the Florida Bar respectfully requests that Governor DeSantis carefully consider and ultimately veto the policies in SB 1796 that will negatively impact Floridians – some of our state’s most respected people, including seniors and children to appeal these unjustified changes in maintenance and timeshare “,” Heather Apicella, Chairman of the Florida Bar's Family Law Section said in a statement.
The bill would establish an equal time-sharing presumption in custody disputes. criticism from across the aisle With regard to the measure claimed, the presumption is not in the best interests of the child. Rep. Emily Slosberg Kinga Palm Beach Democrat and family law attorney, said the presumption will “a procedural hurdle that self-represented litigants must overcome.”
“Existing law directs a judge to consider the needs and interests of the child when determining a parenting plan and time-sharing plan,” Slosberg-King said. “This bill upends the notion that (a) a 50-50 time split should not be considered ideal.”
But supporters of adopting equal time sharing said it would simply ensure equal rights for parents entering the courtroom.
“This has been a difficult policy that we have been dealing with here for years, and to me that assumption has evolved,” Rep. said. Erin Grall, a Republican from Vero Beach. “What we're trying to say is that when you walk into a courtroom in a family law case, you should be on equal footing, and that's not always the case.”
Democratic Representative for Wellington. Matt Willhite agreed with Grall, reiterating that the legislation would codify the presumption while still leaving the judge charged with determining the best plan for the child.
“Judges are already doing this and we need to codify it. We need to make it part of the law and we need to understand that this is the purpose of a presumption and that is how a presumption works,” Willhite said. However, he added: “I think it's a confusing bill, it's imperfect, like many of the bills we see.”
However, the Family Law Division strongly rejects an automatic presumption of 50:50 part-time sharing contained in the legislation.
“The legislation would impact timesharing arrangements for children of divorce and paternity suits,” Apicella said in a statement. “If approved, a child’s time will automatically be split 50:50 between parents. Timeshare cannot be reduced to a formula; The well-being of the children is at stake.”
Another part of the legislation that caused debate was its potential to change the requirements of modifiable agreements.
Like Gruters, Persons-Mulicka insisted that the bill was “not retroactive or unconstitutional.” However, the bill can be applied retroactively to modifiable agreements, a measure that has drawn opposition from public commenters and lawmakers. In cases of alimony that are marked as non-changeable in the marriage agreement, the court cannot apply the bill retroactively.
“This bill is not retroactive, it does not create a right to modify alimony payments that do not currently exist.” Persons-Mulicka said.
Democratic Representative from Aventura. Joe Geller called the provision “fundamentally unfair” and argued it would affect people who chose to stay home and raise children to give their former spouse the opportunity to pursue a career.
“I'll tell you who this isn't fair to — it's fundamentally unfair to housewives, men and women,” Geller said, “who dedicate themselves not only to raising children, but also to the careers of their spouses.
“Now it’s being taken away from them,” he continued. “It doesn’t matter if your ex is on his yacht or on millions. If he wants to retire simply for the benefits of the career you're helping him build, you're in trouble. It’s so fundamentally unfair.”
The Family Division of the Florida Bar also released a statement on the support measure.
“The changes to alimony proposed in this bill are retroactive and will impact existing and outstanding alimony payments and impact countless prenuptial agreements and final judgments,” Apicella continued in her statement. “This sets a dangerous precedent for contractual agreements in Florida, and we are deeply concerned that this public policy undermines justice and creates a system that heavily favors one party while needlessly harming the other.” “prolonged litigation, driving up divorce costs and creating backlogs in an already overburdened family court system.”
During the committee's hearings, opponents argued that cutting permanent support would put those caring for children in a compromising position. Furthermore, they argued that the legislation only aims to help the primary breadwinner, thereby unfairly discriminating against 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.
Post views: 0
Comments are closed.