The Senate panel sends the amended invoice to abolish perpetual alimony to last committee

Legislation ending life support will go before the final Senate 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 payments for any future divorces.

The measure was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday and will now go before the Senate Rules Committee.

“Ultimately, it’s about predictability,” he said. “I see families devastated by the divorce process. It looks like the process itself and the professionals supported are the winners at the end of the day.”

The legislation would also remove the court’s ability to consider the adultery of either spouse when determining the amount of alimony.

An amendment appended by Gruters and approved by the committee Monday night would provide parameters for the court to make determinations about the amount and duration of child support payments.

“By providing these parameters related to the type, length and amount of alimony payments, it will encourage settlement discussions and therefore reduce the cost and legal fees of court cases, allowing their families to keep more of their hard-earned money,” Gruters said at the presentation of the amendment. “This allows recipients to become self-sufficient and get on with their lives.”

The change would also allow alimony payers to reduce payments if they wish to retire, while protecting beneficiaries deemed vulnerable.

“It adds an extra layer of protection for vulnerable recipients when they are unable to meet their needs and necessities of life. In such cases, a judge could extend the alimony payments and ensure those whose careers have a normal time and whose age is less than 65,” Gruters said.

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.”

Miami-Dade Democratic Sen. Jason Pizza proposed an amendment to the amendment that would not allow retrospective application of the legislation. However, the amendment’s amendment fell through despite support from the Florida Bar Family Law Section.

“These are contracts, these are settlements, these are disagreements between two parties. … You either mean your vows or you don’t,” Pizzo said. “Arrangements were made based on reliance on these theories, so why would you go back, where else are we going back and applying these things retrospectively? This is correct. It would be an extraordinary measure to go back to things that people have built their lives around.”

The retroactive nature of the bill drew opposition from public commentators and lawmakers alike.

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.

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.

Family Law Attorney Shannon Novey, a representative of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said the amendment is a step backwards, which is progress in this year’s legislation. She said the pension scheme speaks for old agreements and “retroactively amends those agreements.”

“Unfortunately, the amendment materially sets that process back — rather than settling litigation, we believe litigation will arise that contradicts the claims made by supporters of this bill,” Novey said. “It affects existing alimony payments. It is inadequate in terms of the treatment of retirement and, in evaluating retirement, treats the needs of the recipient versus the ability to pay of the payer unequally.”

Another provision in the bill that has met with opposition is the assumption that equal division of time is in the best interests of children.

“This is contrary to the best interests of the children,” Novey said. “It guarantees more litigation, and it’s going to be ugly litigation. And by that I mean that parents who have very valid reasons for not wanting a 50/50 parenting or that it’s not appropriate for their children give them no choice.”

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