Alimony Modification Overview in the State of Florida
The concepts of alimony and divorce are challenging enough in general, and the intricacies of modification present even more issues to navigate. Alimony is a sum of money, typically paid from one spouse to another, designed to address various financial needs that arise when spouses divorce. In Florida, alimony payments may be permanent, durational – based upon the length of the marriage – or periodic, and they are one element of a spousal support suit (which often also encompasses distribution of the martial assets). Though they are designed to assist divorcing persons and promote fairness, alimony awards are sometimes modified if the need or opportunity arises .
Modification cases, wherein one spouse petitions the court to either reduce or increase the amount of the alimony payments or terminate the order altogether, play out similarly to most matters in divorce: the court examines the situation carefully, evaluating the positions of both parties in regards to health insurance, social security and pension income availability, other income expectations, insurance and medical needs, and the continuing employment efforts of the both parties. As long as the petitioning spouse demonstrates the need for modification, and the obligation spouse can be shown to have underlying capacity to pay, the payment terms may be adjusted by the court.
As is the case with most legal situations, the particulars of new alimony modification case law in Florida can prove difficult to digest without careful study. In the following sections, we provide information that may prove helpful in this regard.
Legal Bases for Florida Alimony Modifications
The grounds for alimony modification, as set forth in Florida Statutes §61.14, are based on the premise that an original marital settlement agreement or divorce judgment reflects the financial circumstances at the time of divorce, but does not necessarily anticipate all future changes. Consequently, if significantly changed circumstances arise, an award of alimony may be subject to modification by the court upon a showing of sufficient cause.
There are numerous statutory grounds for a modification of alimony under § 61.14, Florida Statutes:
With employer-sponsored retirement plans becoming more prevalent, the issue of whether certain retirement plan assets are subject to alimony modification has recently been addressed in several court decisions. In one such case, the court held "a defined benefit pension plan . . . does not present a fixed monetary amount prior to the award of benefits." McBoy v. McBoy, 774 So. 2d 924, 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The Court further explained that any future payments "need not be considered as having been incurred on the date of issuance of the vesting order. Until the pension benefits are paid, neither the obligor nor the obligee has any way of accurately determining what the monthly payments will be, what the tax ramifications will be, or the extent to which a cost of living increase, if any, will be made." Id.
Finally, only disabilities arising subsequent to the original award of alimony may justify a decrease in support; however, a payor’s loss of work merely due to the reduction of available jobs is not a changed circumstance justifying the reduction or termination of alimony. Sutherland v. Sutherland, 940 So. 2d 578, 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Important Case Law on Florida Alimony Modifications
The legal landscape of Florida alimony modification is shaped significantly by a series of presiding state rulings that have established vital precedents and guidelines impacting both the courts and spouses seeking or opposing alimony modifications. Some of these case laws include:
The 1990 decision in the case of Weldon v. Weldon, awarded a former wife alimony based on the husband’s ability to work on weekends despite his full-time job. Notable for its view on a spouse’s capabilities and the use of a spouse’s time, the court determined that part-time weekend employment qualified as appropriate grounds for alimony since this was an option the husband could have exercised but chose not to. From this and other cases, important factors on which a court can base its decision include the educational qualifications of the former spouse, the reasonable value of his or her services, and the extent of salary or income the former spouse may be capable of generating.
The 2003 case of Menard v. Menard further clarified that the trial court cannot merely reduce alimony without considering whether a change in circumstances. This case established that the proper standard for alimony reduction requires proof that the subsequent reduction to a milder form of alimony would satisfy the parties’ needs while considers all relevant factors such as the parties’ prior earning history, the length of the marriage, and the non-receiving spouse’s current ability to pay.
In the case of Hunter v. Hunter in 2008, the court ruled that it is improper to classify a voluntary retirement as a change in circumstances if the employee foresees an imminent permanent layoff. This decision made it clear that a retirement or "voluntary imposition of an artificial cap on income" could not stand as the basis for a reduction and highlighted the need for the court to examine the parties’ respective needs and abilities to pay over the course of the period of time from the commencement of and throughout the entire initial alimony award.
The case of Vaught v. Vaught in 2010 includes a citation spelling out that the trial court may not alter alimony based on a hypothetical scenario unless the obligor actually has an actual layoff. It also states that alimony may be reduced or terminated if the payor is laid off and can prove an incapacity to pay based on the evidence.
The 2011 ruling in Oberlender v. Oberlender states that the trial court must provide the basis for its decisions in modifying alimony so that the appellate court can effectively review the current appropriateness of the alimony amount. The Oberlender court also specified that the new spousal support guidelines, which came out after their divorce, do not result in automatic changes in the alimony collected by former spouses.
Initiating an Alimony Modification Action
To commence a case to modify an alimony award, one must file a Supplemental Petition for Modification of Final Judgment and set it for hearing before the Family Court. Modifications are complex, and the initial filings should be carefully drafted to include specific terms and requested relief by the litigant seeking modification. The general rule is that a modification motion is only going to be granted upon a showing of an unanticipated substantial change in circumstances such as an involuntary employment loss or medical emergency. So it is critical that the motion to modify also be supported with relevant documentation to back up the claim of an involuntary and unanticipated substantial change of circumstances so as to satisfy the judge at the hearing that a valid basis exists to modify the alimony support terms in the Final Judgment.
Common Problems and Considerations in Alimony Modifications
One significant challenge is in proving what qualifies as a substantial change in circumstances. In general, the courts have held that the change must be substantial, involuntary, permanent and not foreseeable even with diligent effort. When no change has occurred, the court may deny the petition for modification. Another challenge is complying with alimony payments while seeking modification, especially when it involves the payer to relocate to a different state or country. The court may deny the relocation if it does not sufficiently benefit the spouse who is receiving alimony. There must be an underlying motive to enhance the earning capacity of the spouse receiving the alimony so he or she can be self-supporting after the modification. The recipient of alimony may also run into challenges, especially if he or she becomes cohabitative with another partner . If the new cohabitant cannot be listed as a dependent on the recipient’s income tax return, the alimony payments would not be reduced unless the prior spouse can prove that they are enjoying the benefit of the finances from the new relationship. The court will reduce the alimony payment if it determines that the new relationship is clearly having a financial impact on the recipient. Another common pitfall occurs if the payer cannot afford to pay the amount of alimony ordered in the original judgment. If the payer knows that he or she cannot meet the payment obligations and waits until criminal court orders compel payment, then the court may determine that the payer had the ability to meet the lower obligation and, therefore, cannot seek modification.
Alimony Modification Legal Aid and Resources
Alimony modification cases can be highly nuanced, and understanding your legal rights and obligations is critical to achieving a fair resolution. While this article provides a general overview of Florida alimony modification case law, relying on legal advice from a qualified attorney is essential for navigating the complexities of these cases.
Whether you are the paying spouse or the recipient spouse in an alimony agreement, consulting a family law attorney familiar with Florida’s laws can help ensure your interests are adequately protected. An attorney can explain the law in plain language, help you gather and present relevant evidence, and represent you in court if necessary.
If cost is a concern, consider utilizing legal aid services available in your area. Many non-profit organizations offer free or reduced-cost legal assistance to residents who meet certain income requirements. The Florida Bar Association offers a directory of free and low-cost legal service providers throughout the state.
Alimony modifications can significantly impact your financial future, so make sure that you have access to the most up-to-date information and support available in order to make educated choices about your case.
Conclusion and Future Developments
As we conclude this discussion about understanding and navigating Florida case law related to alimony modifications, it is important to keep in mind that there are limits to what can be accomplished through the courts. We can draft alimony provisions that are not ambiguous, we can seek to modify final judgments to conform to legal requirements or requirements of appellate courts, but at the end of the day, our family law statutes provide the most certainty as to what will be an acceptable alimony award in a divorce case. Whether you seek to settle your case via a negotiated settlement agreement (which, as at least one judge recited in the oral argument of a final hearing I attended, is almost always better than a final hearing) or to litigate, it is imperative that you go in armed with a solid understanding of what the law will permit.
While writing this article, it occurred to me that many of our recent alimony reforms were handled by statute. Courts and litigating attorneys have to remain apprised of any future changes that may result from any future changes in the law. Already , we have the ACLU following our law with an eye to repeal or revision. It is possible that new George W. Bush-era tax changes will lead to a different result.
Lastly, the argument advanced in Kuidis about an exemption allowing for tax breaks on alimony to collective bargaining agreements remains fraught with risk. That is ultimate fight that will take years to be resolved. In the meantime, this law remains the law.
Although the Supreme Court of Florida should address the issue, since 1980, our high court has considered only two marital dissolution cases: Gendzier v. Gendzier, 399 So.2d 935 (Fla. 1981); and Minor v. Minor, 89 So.3d 223 (Fla. 2012). These decisions predate many of the significant changes in the alimony laws, although the legislature adopted several revisions after Gendzier. Florida’s family law bar looks forward to a historical decision by our Supreme Court.
Until then, we have the appellate courts, the legislature, and our trial judges to guide us. We will keep you posted.