Well, for those
of you who think you can’t change the law with enough moxie and pressure, think
again. In this instance, it is alimony
reform, promoted by a “grassroots” group known as Florida Alimony Reform. Actually, it seems quite clear that this
group consists primarily of men(though supported by an increasing throng of
women) who are bitter with their personal
divorce horror story, and have made it their personal mission not only to “right
these wrongs” for those who will have future ex-spouses, but now, more heinously,
have convinced the legislature to let them change the deals they bargained for
in their own divorce settlements (And, by the way, according to Marlene Brown,
author of The Divorce Process, only
about five percent of divorce cases go to trial….where a Judge made the
ultimate decision, rather than the parties reaching a self-directed settlement. Having practiced law for nearly 29 years in
Florida, I agree with this statistic-simply most cases settle) Go ahead, check
out their website. It is full of half
truths, facts interlaced with fictions, and, dare I say if I didn’t know better,
sounds like it was engineered by, sorry, some of the less that scrupulous
lawyers I know. I initially planned to sum up the proposed changes to alimony
in Florida under Senate Bill 718 and House Bill 431 that, it seems, is revised
daily. Instead, I thought it more
important to dispel some of the myths, dare I say complete misrepresentations
that this group and their followers have spread throughout the state.
By way of
example, John Fromularo, the Northwest Florida representative of Florida
Alimony Reform, in addressing the Crestview Area Chamber of Commerce Government
Issues Committee last month, was quoted as saying:
-People
pay permanent alimony on 4, 6, and 10 year marriages.
Fact:
For a judge to award permanent alimony in a 4, 6, or 10 year marriage, under
the current law (or any prior laws since I started practicing in 1984) requires
extenuating circumstances. For example,
after five years of marriage, a divorcing spouse suffers a debilitating
accident or illness where there is no reasonable possibility of that person
EVER becoming self supporting. Oh, and
by the way, if some miracle occurred and the person becomes self-supporting in
the future, the “permanent alimony” could be modified.
-
Permanent alimony may dissuade divorced people from remarrying because they want
to avoid paying alimony if their next marriage fails.
Fact: HUH??? This is the kind of reasoning that just makes me
scratch my head and be thankful my children were more logical in kindergarten. In
reality, people are more likely to be dissuaded from marrying again because
their marriage was so horrible. Okay, and
if they just happen to be the marrying type...easy to cure the threat of
further alimony (which they could have done before round one as well). Can you
say “prenuptial agreement?”
-
People paying permanent alimony generally must carry alimony insurance
to ensure payments continue if they die before their former spouse.
Fact: Alimony Insurance??? Never heard of it. Check with your insurance agent, because this
is obviously an untapped market. Perhaps
Mr. Fromularo meant an alimony paying ex spouse
must get life insurance naming the recipient ex spouse as the
beneficiary. Current case law says that,
except in rare instances, a court cannot force a divorcing spouse to carry life
insurance to guarantee the alimony obligation.
Did you know that once a person is married more than 10 years, even
after divorce, when the paying ex spouse dies, if that ex spouse’s social
security was more than the recipient, they can start collecting the amount the
ex spouse was receiving. Thank you
Federal Government.
I Currently, if an alimony payer remarries
into better economic circumstances, the ex spouse can decide his/her needs have
increased and demand more alimony.
Fact: Well, in all fairness, I suppose an ex
spouse can “demand” anything. Demanding it, however, does not make it the
law. The mere fact that a paying ex
spouse marries into money does not automatically permit the recipient to get
more alimony no more than if the paying ex spouse hits the lotto does this
allow for an increase in alimony.
FAR goes so
far (pun intended) as to quote from an article in the Family Law Commentator,
written by well respected and terminally smart family law attorney Mark Sessums,
explaining why the alimony reforms are detrimental. Well, FAR found two lawyers willing to voice
opposition to Mr. Sessum’s comments.
Notwithstanding that I personally know both attorneys quoted, the fact
that they may differ (some) with Mr. Sessum’s opinion, is what, in the law is
called having “reasonable minds differ.”
Moreover, the piece by family law attorney and former Florida Bar Family
Law section chairman David Manz in the Sun Sentinel on March 10, 2013,
provides a good overview on the current law.
The comments posted on line, however, emanate from those bitterly
embroiled or affected by their own or a new spouse’s divorce. My
favorite comments are from those who believe lawyers are against the reform
because it will mean attorneys will have
“less billable hours.” Initially, for
better or worse, (oh, another pun, sort of) when it came to the client, I
thought the legislation would simplify things. Ha! After I read the latest
draft today, I am convinced I will be twice as busy if this bill passes, not
only with new clients, but with all the past clients who can now come back and
re-litigate again. Stay tuned. www.google.com
No comments:
Post a Comment