BYE-BYE FLORIDA ALIMONY REFORM-UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN

Dateline: Tallahassee-  T minus 4 Hours Until Deadline....

     Well, I'd like to say that Florida Governor Rick Scott read my recent blog noting that passage of the Florida Alimony Reform Bill (SB 718) might "help" individual  past, present and potentially future alimony payers, an overall and (presumably) unintended effect would be a future taxation on the state's social welfare system. Essentially, when long-term marriages end and one spouse stayed out of the paying workforce to raise a family, that spouse would be entering (or re-entering ) the workforce at around age 50, and would not accrue enough social security benefits to ever stop working once alimony ended.  That leaves the state to pitch in.

       However, with all the publicity about the details of the bill, I'm sure Mr. Scott was bright enough to see through the "special interests" who vehemently promoted this bill, and tonight he vetoed it just hours before the midnight deadline.

       But wait…it's not over until it's over.   Under Florida law, once the Governor chooses to veto a bill, the Legislature can overturn his veto the next time they meet by a two thirds vote of both chambers.
       What was the initial vote passing the law?  The Senate passed SB 718  by  a 29-11 vote, WAY more than 2/3rds, and the House passed SB by an 85-31 vote, still well over the 2/3rd. Even a lawyer can do that math.

       So, where does that leave alimony in Florida?  For now, the state of alimony remains   with the same changes made over the past few years.  I am not discarding my copy of the bill as of yet.  It will be back.  If it passes by the 2/3rd vote on the next round, I'll pull it out again….at least until someone raises a constitutional challenge. 

Florida Alimony Reform-State Economic Disaster

     Tomorrow is "D-Day." Will Governor Scott veto the Alimony Reform Bill or not? So, for today, rather than summarize and highlight the very scary parts of this bill, I’d rather set out for you a likely scenario in a "typical" case, where, although the bill is beneficial to a potential "permanent alimony payor" in turn, it creates an adverse effect as an economic drain on Florida’s social welfare system.

      Let’s assume Bill and Barbara marry at age 25. For three years Barbara uses her college degree in marketing, and works for a small company. Bill finishes his masters and becomes a CPA, working for an international accounting firm. In the fourth year Bill and Barbara start a family and Billy is born. Bill and Barbara jointly decide Barbara should become a full-time stay at home mom, as Bill is excelling in his career and they don’t need a second income. Moreover, Barbara takes on the role of perfect corporate wife by entertaining in their home and tending to everyday details of the household, freeing up Bill to concentrate on his career. Two years later, little Betsy comes along. Over the next 18 years, Barbara becomes the perfect PTA mom, soccer mom, corporate entertainer and house organizer. Bill is pulling in the big bucks and life is wonderful...until Betsy goes off to college and Bill decides to trade Barbara in for a newer model, just over 25 years after their wedding.

      Barbara is now over 50. She has not worked outside the home in 22 years. Her marketing skills are obsolete. Under the new alimony law here’s the maximum of what Barbara gets in alimony:
*12 ½ years of alimony (half the length of the marriage)
* A maximum of 38% of Bill’s gross income (presumably not bad for those 12 ½ years)      Now, what does Barbara do? At age 50+ it is unlikely she can rehabilitate herself into a new career (and who really has the strength and fortitude to do this at that age?) If she has some sense she will understand that, even though the alimony she receives now may be sufficient (maybe?) It will come to an abrupt end as she nears 63. So she gets a job paying $10 an hour? And she works at about that rate (maybe a little more or less) as she ages and becomes less marketable (affirmative action aside, let’s face it, a young, newly educated person with more longevity is more likely than not to get the job over Barbara). If Barbara is frugal she can "save" a little. If Barbara had her husband take care of all the finances, she might not even have a clue...

      So 12 ½ years go by, and Barbara nears retirement...What do you think she will get from social security with 12 ½ years of wages under her belt (assuming we still have a fund to pay this from)? Answer: not a lot...! Okay, I realize that Barbara can get benefits of up to 50% under her ex-husband’s social security benefits while he is still alive (provided she did not remarry and provided that these benefits would eclipse those she would receive on her own) but he still gets it all.

      What does all this mean? Well, it means there are going to be a lot more people down the road who, as they enter their senior years, can no longer live on what they have available. So guess who is going to foot the bill.... Yup, you got it- our state, which translates into you and me. Glad the legislature can serve those special interests...the sour grape suckers who have no taken their personal financial problems in paying alimony to their former spouses, into a pending statewide tsunami.



・

Florida Alimony Reform Bill on Governor's Desk-Does it Matter?

  Status of Alimony Reform in Florida

   So where does the legislature and, for that matter Governor Scott, stand on the Alimony Reform Bill (Senate Bill 718) at this moment?

Well, in brief, it looks like this:

The Florida House adopted the bill slammed through the Florida Senate +(SB 718)

•   A second engrossed (so they still keep changing the "final" version) was published April 24^th.
•   The bill sits on +Governor Rick Scott’s desk.
•   The Governor must sign or veto the legislation within 15 days of receipt, or it automatically    becomes the law without his signature.

      Now my colleagues tell me ( I was just at a Broward County family law seminar on Fridaya this week is D-Day. So, Governor Scott can sign the bill or sit on his hands. Either way it will become the law unless he vetoes the bill.

     Here’s the rub...even if +Governor Scott has to foresight to see that the Alimony Reform Bill may alleviate a certain class of individuals from these individuals’ personal financial drain, and exercises his veto power, the bill can return to the House and Senate, and with 2/3rds vote, IT AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES LAW!

   Tomorrow I’ll take you through a scenario that the special interest groups ignored, and the legislature failed to contemplate. Specifically, you’ll see how ALL OF US will end up paying the price by transferring economic responsibility from the individual to society. In this instance, really bad economic theory about to become reality in Florida.

Florida Alimony Reform Update: Senate Bill 718 Passes April 4, 2013

Last week I summarized and provided some detail on Senate Bill 718, more commonly referred to as the alimony reform bill, including amendments passed on the second reading last week.

Well, what a surprise, late yesterday the Senate passed the bill, but did incorporate a few more amendments that assist prospective alimony recipients.

In a nutshell, the Senate raised the maximum amount of alimony that may be awarded, based on the payor’s gross income, as follows:

In Short Term Marriages (10 years or less): from 20% to 25%

In Mid Term Marriages (over 10 years but less than 20 years) from 30% to 35%

In Long Term Marriages (greater than 20 years) from 33% to 38%

Keep in mind, these percentages are the ceilings...not the floors, and the bill emphasizes courts considering bridge-the-gap alimony (maximum of 2 years, and rehabilitative alimony before contemplating duration alimony   .

And, the Senate added that Courts may award a maximum of 40% of the payor’s gross income when durational alimony is combined with rehabilitative alimony. Of course, we all know that a person who stayed home to raise a family for 18 years, hasn’t worked outside the home, and is now 48 or 50 years of age (or older), can just jump back into school and develop a career in a few years to adequately support one’s self through retirement.

This Bill still has to be signed into law by Governor Scott. In case you are opposed to these changes, you can sign an on line petition at  http://www.change.org/petitions/florida-governor-rick-scott-veto-sb-718-and-hb-231.

There’s still more crazy legislation pending to write about, as well as more on this bill coming up over the next week.

Alimony Reform-A Part of the Story

     “Alimony reform” has been the big news buzz over the past few weeks.  Last year I wrote that after the Florida Alimony Reform group made limited progress with the Florida legislature in pushing through their “sour grapes” proposed legislative changes to alimony that they would be back.  I might now add that they returned… with a vengence.

       Last week the Florida Senate had the second reading of Senate Bill 718, introduced by Senator +Kelli Stargel, entitled "An act relating to dissolution of marriage;" and a page more of stuff. (if this sounds more like a comment made by +Dave Barry, you’re right…I should only be fortunate enough to write about the absurdities of our great state of Florida rather than have to practice a profession within it)  During that session, a number of amendments to the bill were introduced by Senator +Arthenia Joyner (who, candidly, at times seemed confused and flustered about what she was actually introducing as an amendment).  Most of the amendments passed unanimously ( with, I kid you not, a determination of the strength of the auditory “yeah” or “nay” votes, but this is our government at work). Below, I  summarized a portion of the highlights of this bill, as it now stands. Now, keep in mind, this bill is about 23 pages long, so I’ll try to be concise and use “real words,” because we know lawyers don’t really use “real words.”  However, if you ever read a legislative bill, you’d see they are not written in “real words” either.

    ●      “Long term marriage” means one is married 20 years or more.

            Why is this important: In a long term marriage there is a presumption that the lower earning (or non-earning) spouse will be awarded alimony. HOWEVER, that presumption can be overcome (in other words, no alimony is awarded) by “clear and convincing evidence.” This means, essentially, one would have to show there is “no-way, no how” the spouse is entitled to, or the other spouse can pay alimony.  The maximum amount one can receive for a long term marriage is 33 percent of the paying party’s net (after tax) income.

      ●     “Mid-term marriage” means one is married more than 10 years but less than 20 years.

            Why this is important:   In a mid-term marriage there is neither a presumption for or against alimony. Instead of “clear and convincing” evidence, either spouse merely needs to prove by a “preponderance” of the evidence that alimony should or should not be paid.  What does THIS mean? In short, it still gives both sides a horse in the race, so to speak, and provides ample fodder for attorneys to duke it out.  It resolves little, if anything. Oh, and by the way, the maximum amount of alimony that can be awarded in a mid-term marriage is 30 percent of paying spouse’s net (after tax) income.  

       ●   “Short-term marriage” means one lasting 10 years or less. (Wow, even still, I never had a client come in who was married close to 10 years who said, wistfully, when asked the date of marriage, “Ah, it seems like just yesterday…..”)

            Why this is important:  In a short-term marriage, there is a presumption that NO alimony will be paid.  Again, this can be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence, again creating grounds for battle, and providing discretion to a judge.   Even if one meets the burden of entitlement to alimony in a short-term marriage, the maximum amount is 20 percent of paying spouse’s net (after tax) income.

        And, of course, there is the “exception” to the net income percentages to be used in calculating alimony, if the judge determines there is a “need” for additional alimony. (Hey, what about the paying party’s ability to pay more? Did they forget this or was it left out because the drafters [or those pulling the strings connected to the drafters] just assumed that any paying party had an ability to pay more than the new guideline maximums?)  

      ●   Permanent alimony is eliminated, leaving bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative and durational alimony, (see below) which may be awarded in a combination and may be payable in periodic payments, lump sum or both.  A combo platter may only be awarded to help the person become self supporting (or, as they call it “achieve rehabilitation.”)

     ●   Bridge-the-gap alimony “shall be prioritized” followed by rehabilitative alimony over any other form.  I guess that means, “Judge, find a way to award bridge-the-gap alimony.   Bridge-the-gap alimony is for TWO YEARS AND TWO YEARS ONLY!!!!

     ●   Rehabilitative alimony, in definition, has not really changed, and contemplates a person requesting alimony to present a detailed plan of how he/she is going to become self-supporting.  Of course, as we all know, everyone who divorces at 50, after an 18 year marriage where that person’s job was raising the kids and caring for the home), can go out and rehabilitate to learn or start a new career and earn a decent living.   

    ●   Alimony AUTOMATICALLY terminates-if it hasn’t ended before- upon the paying spouse reaching “normal retirement age for social security retirement benefits.”  However, using that “clear and convincing” standard again, if the alimony recipient shows the court a need for alimony to continue, and the paying party still has an ability to pay, then alimony may continue, but, it appears, for no longer than the maximum time the court initially awarded.

    ●   In determining the need by a party to receive alimony and the ability of the other party to pay, no longer will the standard of living during the marriage be considered. So, if the parties lived high-on-the-hog, so to speak, while married, the recipient spouse should not expect to do so afterwards.  The courts are, however, permitted to consider non-marital monies in calculating alimony if either party relied upon them during the marriage. (another concept that, in application, is clear as mud).  The courts may, however, contemplate what each party’s standard of living will be after the marriage- but they “presume” that both will have a lower standard.  The real question is how low…Low enough so the “recipient” now comes to the government for aid?

    ●     Alimony awards may be secured (or perhaps guaranteed?) by life insurance or a bond, but only if the court finds “special circumstances” to do so.  Of course, there is no definition of what these “special circumstances” might be.
  
    ●     Durational alimony can be awarded in a short-term, mid-term or long-term marriage, provided the Court sets out specifically, in writing, why another form of alimony or combination, is “not appropriate.”

   ●     Even so, the term for payment of durational alimony can be a maximum of one-half of the length of the marriage (that means for 20 years you max out after 10 years of alimony, IF you get that long) …unless the prospective alimony recipient can show no-way, no-how (that clear and convincing standard again) that this is fair, or, as the statute says, there are “exceptional circumstances justifying a longer alimony award.”

          Now, I certainly understand, from an emotional level, how a spouse previously ordered to pay permanent alimony, considered it a “life sentence.”  But “permanent”  alimony is a bit of a misnomer.  Permanent alimony ends if the  recipient remarries or dies.( It also ends when the paying party dies, but at that point I doubt that the payor cares much)  Permanent alimony was modifiable if either pary (but more likely the paying spouse) had a substantial change in circumstances.  For example, if the paying spouse lost a job and could not find another job paying as much, then alimony could be modified downward.  Permanent alimony was modifiable at retirement (but, I agree, retirement was not defined very well). Several years ago, a new statute made it modifiable if the recipient engaged in a “substantial supportive relationship.”  Again, as now, that created more litigation than resolution because of some poorly defined portions of the statute.   

       Still, the total abolition of alimony lasting any longer than half the term of the marriage seems a little rough.  Yes, there are the exceptional circumstances, and that is what litigating is all about. Does the new bill make some things more clear cut? Yes.  Are there aspects of the bill that are reasonable? Some.  Will it keep parties from divorcing? Prospective recipients-maybe; prospective payors-no…in fact they may be encouraged to shed their spouses now knowing the “life sentence” has been repealed. 

       But wait…there is more to this bill.  However, it still has not passed, although, candidly, it seems like the deal was already done outside the Senate chambers.  After the next reading…and the vote, I’ll discuss the other aspects of this bill, including :

● Imputing (that means “making up” in legalese) what one party’s income “should be” when  calculating each party’s income;  

●  When one can modify alimony;

            ●   How alimony and child support affect one another;

●  Getting your divorce before everyone figures out property rights, child support and  alimony; 

● Changing what YOUR alimony is now as a result of the statute and WHEN you can do it

        And then there’s the legislation making changes to time sharing with the kids….  Another day’s work!

Alimony Reform-Who's Fooling Who?

      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