Equitable Distribution: The Marital Interest in a Non-Marital Property or Premarital Home

As couples marry later in life or have second marriages, one or both of the parties may already own a home. As a result, in many divorce cases, the parties live in a home owned solely by one of the parties.  In these cases, a common question is whether the non-owner spouse has any interest in the home.

Equitable distribution in Florida is governed by section 61.075, Florida Statutes.  When dealing with the division of a couple's assets and liabilities, the first step in the analysis is for the court to set aside any non-marital assets and liabilities.  The court is then tasked with distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, with the premise that such assets and liabilities should be divided equally.

Under section 61.075(6)(a)(1)(b), Florida Statutes, marital assets are defined to include the "enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or other forms of marital assets, or both."

If marital funds are used to enhance a non-marital asset, the value the enhancement is therefore marital. Accordingly, if the parties built a home on non-marital property, the enhanced value relating to the structure is marital.  The relevant statutory language also clearly provides that, under certain circumstances, the appreciation of a non-marital asset is indeed a marital asset. See Kaaa v. Kaaa, 58 So. 3d 867, 870 (Fla. 2010).  In particular, the passive appreciation of a non-marital asset, such as a home, is properly considered a marital asset where marital funds or the efforts of either party contributed to the appreciation.  Id.  The Florida Supreme Court has held that, if one party uses marital funds to pay the mortgage on a non-marital property and the non-owner spouse makes "contributions" to the property, some portion of the passive appreciation on the home is subject to equitable distribution.  Id. at 871.  

The Florida Supreme Court adopted the following methodology for determining how the appreciated value is properly allocated between the parties:

If a separate asset is unencumbered and no marital funds are used to finance its acquisition, improvement, or maintenance, no portion of its value should ordinarily be included in the marital estate, absent improvements effected by marital labor. If an asset is financed entirely by borrowed money which marital funds repay, the entire asset should be included in the marital estate. In general, in the absence of improvements, the portion of the appreciated value of a separate asset which should be treated as a marital asset will be the same as the fraction calculated by dividing the indebtedness with which the asset was encumbered at the time of the marriage by the value of the asset at the time of the marriage. If, for example, one party brings to the marriage an asset in which he or she has an equity of fifty percent, the other half of which is financed by marital funds, half the appreciated value at the time of the petition for dissolution was filed, § 61.075(5)(a) 2, Fla. Stat. (1993), should be included as a marital asset. The value of this marital asset should be reduced, however, by the unpaid indebtedness marital funds were used to service.

See Kaaa, 58 So. 3d at 872.

Thus, when non-marital real property is encumbered by a mortgage that was paid by marital funds, a pro-rata portion of the passive appreciation in the property's value that accrues during the course of the marriage is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.

If you have questions concerning your Florida equitable distribution or property division rights, please contact an experienced Tampa family law attorney.

By Richard Mockler

Florida Alimony and Alimony Reform

Most clients accept that they will have to split their joint assets in a divorce.  But, four issues really seem to strike a nerve in men.  Military divorce clients typically find it very hard to accept that their spouse is going to leave them and take half of the marital portion of the military retirement.  Many fathers cannot understand why mothers still have an upper hand in custody disputes.  And, no one wants to pay their spouse's legal fees.  But, the most controversial part of many divorces is the issue of alimony.

Parties seeking alimony feel that they are entitled to maintain the standard of living achieved during the marriage.  Ironically, in many cases, the standard of living led to the downfall of the marriage in the first place. And, unfortunately, for most couples, it is impossible to maintain two households at the same standard previously achieved in one.  Further, many people have financed their lifestyle by accumulating debt or failing to save.  As couples age, their need for savings becomes more important.  Alimony typically destroys both parties’ ability to save for retirement.

Many clients argue that the party seeking alimony would not need it (or at least not nearly as much of it) if they would just go back to work.  And, where a non-working mother is seeking alimony, it seems that judges are quick to assume that the parties agreed for the wife to stay home with the children.  Even if the husband agreed for her to stop working, the agreement was rarely meant to be “permanent.” Some women choose – against their husband’s wishes – to stay home much longer than their partner ever anticipated.  These women feel it is “necessary” for them to stay home, even after the child has started school.

When the parties cannot agree on how much alimony is appropriate or how the requesting party should receive alimony, the court will have to award alimony pursuant to the standards set forth in section 61.08, Florida Statutes.

Types of Florida Alimony

In a divorce case, the court may grant bridge-the-gap alimony, rehabilitative alimony, durational alimony, permanent alimony, or any combination of these forms of alimony.  In any award of alimony, the court may order periodic payments or payments in lump sum or both.  See Fla. Stat. § 61.08.

Bridge-the-Gap Alimony

Bridge-the-gap alimony is an award of alimony for a set duration of time to assist the party in need with the transition from married life to single life.  This alimony is not subject to modification and may be awarded for up to 2 years.

Rehabilitative Alimony

Rehabilitative alimony is intended to assist a party in achieving the means necessary to support herself after the marriage.  The party seeking rehabilitative alimony must propose a “plan” to the court outlining what she intends to do to increase her earning capability, how the training will help her financially, how long the training will take, and how much the training will cost.  Rehabilitative alimony may be modified or terminated if the wife does not attend the courses as proposed in the rehabilitative plan.

Durational Alimony

Durational alimony was created by the Florida legislature in 2010.  The purpose of durational alimony is to provide periodic support to a spouse for a number of years, not to exceed the duration of the marriage, which is measure from the date or marriage to the date of filing for divorce.  The amount of alimony awarded each month is subject to modification if one of the parties experiences a substantial change of circumstances, including an unanticipated change in need or ability to pay, death of either party, or remarriage of the payee. The duration of the alimony award is not subject to modification, except in exceptional circumstances.

Permanent Periodic Alimony

Permanent period alimony is an award of alimony, typically on a monthly basis, that continues indefinitely. Permanent alimony terminates on the death of either party or upon the remarriage of the recipient. Permanent alimony is also subject to modification if the recipient spouse is in a supportive relationship.  Some parties may be eligible to terminate their alimony obligation upon retirement if there are not sufficient income-producing assets for the retiree to continue paying the alimony.

Lump Sum Alimony

Lump sum alimony is awarded where it is appropriate for the court to award a fixed sum of alimony to one spouse.  This may be appropriate where one party divests himself of the ability to earn income and pay alimony.  It may also be appropriate where one party is ordered to pay off certain marital debts.  Lump sum alimony may be payed in installments but it may not be terminated, even upon death or remarriage.

Florida Alimony Factors

In determining whether to award alimony, section 61.08, Florida Statutes, requires that the court must first make a specific factual determination as to whether either party has an actual need for alimony and whether the other party has the ability to pay alimony.

If the court finds that one party has a need for alimony and that the other party has the ability to pay alimony, then in determining the proper type and amount of alimony, the court must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to the following:

1. The standard of living established during the marriage.
2. The duration of the marriage.
3. The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party.
4. The financial resources of each party, including the non-marital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.
5. The earning capacities, educational levels, vocational skills, and employability of the parties and, when applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment.
6. The contribution of each party to the marriage, including, but not limited to, services rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of the other party.
7. The responsibilities each party will have with regard to any minor children they have in common.
8. The tax treatment and consequences to both parties of any alimony award, including the designation of all or a portion of the payment as a nontaxable, nondeductible payment.
9. All sources of income available to either party, including income available to either party through investments of any asset held by that party.
10. Any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

Florida Alimony Reform

In 2013, the Florida Legislature passed significant alimony reform laws. To the shock of many,  including those for and against alimony reform, Governor Rick Scott vetoed the legislation.  A letter from Governor Scott made clear that he believed the alimony reform legislation was anti-family, especially certain provisions that would allow courts to modify prior alimony awards.

With 2014 being an election year, the Governor has also made clear that he does not want to reconsider the controversial bill, which could potentially alienate roughly half of Florida voters.  But, we have not seen the last of Florida’s alimony reform movement.  Look for proponents of alimony reform to return next year, especially if Governor Scott wins re-election.

The 2013 alimony reform legislation would have changed how the courts classify short-term, moderate-term, and long-term marriages.  The current alimony statute defines a marriage of less than 7 years as short-term, a marriage of 7 to 17 years as moderate-term, and a marriage lasting 17 years or more as long-term. There is currently a presumption in favor of awarding permanent alimony after long-term marriages, and there is a presumption against permanent alimony after short-term marriages.

The 2013 alimony reform bill also would have changed the marriage classifications as follows:  (a) any marriage lasting less than 11 years would be a short-term marriage, (b) any marriage lasting between 11 and 20 years would be a moderate-term marriage, and (c) only those marriage lasting more than 21 years would be considered long-term.  Significantly, the proposed 2013 legislation would have created a presumption against awarding alimony in short-term marriages.  And, while the bill maintained a presumption in favor of alimony in long-term marriages, it would have eliminated the concept of  permanent periodic alimony.

The 2013 proposed alimony reform also placed significant limits on awards of durational alimony.   Specifically, under current law, durational alimony may be awarded for as many years as the parties were married.  The 2013 alimony reform bill would have presumptively capped durational alimony at half the duration of the marriage.  In other words, a party that was married 14 years could receive alimony for no more than 7 years.  Courts only would have had discretion to exceed this cap in cases where the need is justified by exceptional circumstances.

Under existing alimony law, there are no statutory limits on the amount of alimony that may be awarded, except that the alimony award cannot exceed 50% of the payor's gross income and cannot result in the recipient have significantly more income than the payor.  The 2013 alimony reform would have imposed lower caps on the amount of alimony that could be awarded.  Alimony would have been capped at the following percentages: (a) 25% of the payor's gross income for short-term marriages; (b) 35% of the payor's gross income for moderate-term marriages; and (c) 38% of the payor's gross income in long-term marriages.

There is no guarantee that the same framework will be included in future attempts at alimony reform.  The 2013 alimony reform bill was strongly supported in the legislature.  But, the bill was most likely vetoed due to the controversial provisions that allowed courts to modify past alimony awards.

If you have questions about alimony, cohabitation, termination of alimony, or alimony modifications, please contact an experienced Florida family law attorney.

Florida Law on Morality, Adultery, Homosexuality, and Child Custody

Under Florida law, Courts are required to make all parenting decisions based on the child's best interests. The Florida legislature has set out 20 factors for courts to consider when establishing a parenting plan or making a parenting or custody determination.  See Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3).

The parenting factors address many issues, such as which parent is more willing to share time, handles more of the parenting responsibilities, acts on the interest of the child, has been caring for the child, demonstrates knowledge of the child's circumstances, provides a consistent routine, communicates with the other parent, avoids violence, and maintains a home free of substance abuse. See Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3).  These considerations are largely non-controversial.

Courts are also required to consider the "moral fitness of the parents."  See Fla. Stat. § 61.13(3)(f).  This factor is extremely subjective, and it does not frequently play a significant role in custody determinations.

For the trial court to consider a parent’s "moral fitness" in connection with establishing a parenting plan or determining parental responsibility, the conduct in question must have a “direct effect or impact” upon the minor child.  See Smith v. Smith, 39 So. 3d 458, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).  Moreover, the connection between the conduct and the harm to the child must have an evidentiary basis.  See id. (quoting Jacoby v. Jacoby, 763 So.2d 410, 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)); see also Willis v. Willis, 818 So. 2d 530, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).   “A connection between the actions of the parent and the harm to the child...cannot be assumed.”  See Packard v. Packard, 697 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

In cases where a parent has engaged in adultery, the other parent may argue that the court should consider the adultery when making a determination of time-sharing or parental responsibility.  When adultery is at issue, the act of adultery should not be taken into consideration in determining custody unless the trial court finds that the adultery has a direct bearing on the child’s welfare. See Smith, 39 So. 3d at 461; Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22, 24 (Fla. 1975); Willis, 818 So. 2d at 533. Marital misconduct is not necessarily an appropriate standard for determining the best interests of the child.  See Farrow v. Farrow, 263 So. 2d 588, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); McAnespie v. McAnespie, 200 So. 2d 606, 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).  A parent who commits adultery may very well be better suited to parent the child.  See Willis, 818 So. 2d at 533.  “Adultery may or may not have any direct bearing on the welfare of a child of tender years.”  Id.  The mere possibility of a negative impact on the child is not sufficient.  See Willis, 818 So. 2d at 533.

Florida courts have also rejected any notion that the potential for societal disapproval for immoral behavior may be used as a justification for favoring one parent in a custody case.  See Lofton v. Sec’y. of the Dept. of Children and Family Services, 377 F.3d 1275, 1300 (Anderson, J., dissenting from the Denial of Rehearing En Banc) (citing Maradie v. Maradie, 680 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)).

In Maradie v. Maradie, 680 So. 2d 538, 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the parties presented considerable testimony about the sexual conduct of each parent and its relation to the parent's "moral fitness" under section 61.13(3)(f), Florida Statutes.  Among other things, the former husband presented evidence that his former wife was bisexual and had been involved in lesbian relationships.  Id.  The court-appointed psychologist testified, however, that there was no evidence that the former wife's sexual orientation impaired her parenting ability or had negatively impacted the child.  Id.  Nevertheless, the trial court awarded custody of the parties' daughter to the former husband.  Id.  The trial court based its decision on the following reasoning:

The testimony reveals that Mrs. Maradie, with her homosexual lover, spend nights and sleep together in the same bed, kiss, hold hands and speak in terms of endearment in front of the child. The possibility of negative impact on the child, especially as she grows older and reaches her late pre-teen and early teen years, is considerable.  The Court does not have to have expert evidence to reach this conclusion, but can take judicial notice that a homosexual environment is not a traditional home environment, and can adversely affect a child. To say that this cannot be considered until there is actual proof that it has occurred is asking the Court to abdicate its common sense and responsible decision-making endeavors.

Maradie, 680 So. 2d at 540-41.  Florida's First District Court of Appeal explained that the trial court was permitted to consider a parent's sexual conduct in determining the parent's moral fitness under section 61.13(3)(f).  The trial court, however, was required to focus on whether the parent's behavior had a direct impact on the welfare of the child.  Id. at 541.  The trial court certainly was not permitted to take "judicial notice" of the "fact" that a homosexual environment is not traditional and can adversely affect a child.  Id.  Accordingly, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision to award custody to the former husband and its decision to take "judicial notice" that being raised in the presence of homosexuality can adversely affect a child.  Id.

In Ward v. Ward, 742 So. 2d 250, 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), Florida's First District Court of Appeal again clarified that the sexual orientation of the custodial parent does not, by itself, justify a custody change.  In Ward, the trial court changed custody from the former wife, who was a lesbian, to the former husband, who was previously convicted of second degree murder for killing his first wife.  Id. at 252.  On appeal, Florida's First District Court of Appeal found that the trial court was not focused on the fact that the former wife was a lesbian, but rather on the best interests of the child.  Id.  The trial court concluded that the former wife was involved in a relationship that directly and adversely affected the child.  Id. at 254.  The First District Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by changing custody because the determination was without regard to the sexual orientation of that relationship.  Id.

In Packard v. Packard, 697 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the trial court awarded custody to the former husband where the wife was a lesbian living with a woman who was previously involved in a menage a trois with the parties during their marriage.  Id.  Remarkably, at the time of the divorce, the former husband was living with his new girlfriend, her children, and the parties' daughters.  On appeal, the former wife argued that the trial court based its custody decision solely on her sexual orientation.  Id.  The former husband's living arrangements were also fairly viewed as "untraditional."  Id.  The former wife argued that it was therefore discriminatory for the trial court to base its custody determination on the finding that a more "traditional family environment" would be provided by the former husband.  Id.  Florida's First District Court of Appeal again explained that the trial court may consider a parent's sexual conduct in determining the parent's moral fitness under section 61.13(3)(f), Florida Statutes, but that in such consideration "the trial court should focus on whether the parent's behavior has a direct impact on the welfare of the child."  Id.  In other words, the trial court's primary consideration must be on the conduct involved and whether the conduct has had or is reasonably likely to have an adverse impact on the child, as opposed to weighing which household was more or less "traditional."  Id.  The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's custody determination and remanded the case with instructions to follow the foregoing principles when considering the parties' moral fitness.  Id.

In Jacoby v. Jacoby, 763 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the former husband's case was centered largely on attacking the former wife based on her sexual orientation.  The trial court made remarks about the negative impact of the mother's  sexual orientation on the children.  Id. at 413.  The Second District Court of Appeal found that the trial court's negative comments were conclusory and unsupported by the evidence.  Id. Specifically, the trial court found that "the community" shared the former husband's belief that homosexuals are immoral and should not be entrusted to rear children.  Id.  The trial court further found that a "strong stigma" attaches to homosexuality and that while being reared in a homosexual environment does not appear to alter sexual preference, it does affect social interaction and that it is likely that the children's peers or their parents will have negative words or thoughts.  Id.  The Second District Court of Appeal, however, found that even if the trial court's comments about the community's beliefs and possible reactions were correct and supported by the evidence, "the law cannot give effect to private biases."  Id.  With respect to the custody decision, the Second District further reasoned that "even if the law were to permit consideration of the biases of others, and even if we were to accept the assumption that such would necessarily harm the children, the bias and ensuing harm would flow not from the fact that the children were living with a homosexual mother, but from the fact that she is a homosexual."  Id.  The Second District Court of Appeal held that the trial court's "reliance on perceived biases was an improper basis for a residential custody determination."  Id.  The trial court also improperly concluded that the children's exposure to the Baptist religion coupled with living with a homosexual parent would necessarily create confusion for the children.  Id. at 414.  The lower court also made a number of other leaping conclusions in support of its decision to award custody to the heterosexual father.  Id. at 414-15.  None of these jumps to conclusion were supported by the evidence, and the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision.  Id. at 414-15.  In short, when making its custody determination, the trial court impermissibly penalized the mother for her sexual orientation without evidence that it harmed the children.  Id. at 415.

All of these decisions by the Florida courts make clear that homosexuality alone cannot be the basis for an adverse custody decision.  The trial court must link any allegedly "immoral behavior" to a direct affect on the minor child.  That connection must be supported by evidence in the record.  The link cannot be the product of speculation or "judicial notice."  In other words, before a court can make any judgment concerning a party's homosexual or other allegedly "immoral" conduct, the court must be prepared to explain how the conduct at issue directly impacted the minor child.

If you have questions about child custody issues in Florida, please contact an experienced Florida family law attorney.

Can a Florida Court Extend Child Support Beyond Age 18?

The duty to provide support for a minor child is based upon the child's incapacity, both natural and legal, and the child's need of protection and care.  See Kern v. Kern, 360 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Court have recognized that a parent's legal duty to support his children ordinarily ceases at the age of majority.  Perla v. Perla, 58 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 1952).  A parent, however, owes a duty of support to an adult child in extraordinary circumstances, such as when the child suffers severe physical or mental incapacitation.  See Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

In 1973, the Florida legislature lowered the age of majority from 21 to 18.   See Fla. Stat. § 743.07.    More recently, the Florida child support statute was modified to require all family law judgments awarding child support to include the following provisions:

1. That the child support for each child will terminate on the child’s 18th birthday unless the court finds that section 743.07(2) applies, or is otherwise agreed to by the parties; 
2. A schedule stating the amount of the monthly child support obligation for all the minor children and the amount of child support that will be owed for any remaining children after one or more of the children are no longer entitled to support; and 
3. The date that the reduction or termination of child support becomes effective. 

See Fla. Stat. § 61.13(1)(a).

In other words, section 61.13, Florida Statutes, requires that a payor's child support obligation automatically adjusts downward as each child reaches his or her 18th birthday.

The Florida legislature has also codified when a support obligation may be extended beyond 18 years of age. Specifically, section 743.07, Florida Statutes, states that child support may be extended beyond age 18 in two situations: (a) where a child is dependent due to mental or physical incapacity that began prior to age 18; and (b) where a child has reached the age of majority, is living at home, attending high school, and reasonably expects to graduate high school before age 19.  This language was added to the statute effective October 1, 1988.  See Penton v. Penton, 564 So. 2d 1114, 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).  Courts have recognized that these two situations are separate bases to extend child support beyond age 18.  See Miller v. Smart, 636 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

The difficult question is under what circumstances might a mental or physical incapacity justify an extension of child support?  The statutory uses the word "dependent."  Obviously, the word dependent suggests that a parent will not owe support if the child is out working and self-supporting.  The answer is less clear where a child is moderately incapacitated and living at home.  A troubling example might be a child living at home and suffering from a mild physical disability or a moderate psychological disorder.   In Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a dependent child must suffer from a "severe physical or mental incapacity."

Decisions subsequent to Kern that discuss whether an adult child is "dependent" within the meaning of section 743.07, Florida Statutes, have not used the words "suffering" or "severe" when describing the child's mental or physical incapacity.  See, e.g., Carres v. Good-Earnest, 838 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Miller v. Smart, 636 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

In Penton v. Penton, 564 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the court awarded child support beyond the age of majority due to the child's mental and emotional condition.  In Penton, the parties' son was a sophomore in high school at the time of the divorce. The first district concluded that the son suffered "psychological infirmities" due to the stress stemming from the divorce and was being treated by a mental health professional. The child's emotional condition constituted a dependency, which, when coupled with his economic incapacity, was sufficient to require support beyond the age of majority.

In Pitts v. Pitts, 566 So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the parties' child suffered from learning disabilities, which required him to devote most of his time to his studies.  The court found that the child could not work to support himself while he was in school due to his learning disability.  This decision is noteworthy because the child's disability appeared relatively modest.

Regardless of whether the physical or mental incapacity is "severe," under section 743.07, Florida Statutes, the incapacity must result in the child's "dependency."  Some practitioners and judges may equate "dependency" with "disability."  And, this would be a fair analogy given that the child must suffer from an incapacity that rises to the level of dependency.  Finally, the incapacity - whatever it might be - must have rendered the child dependent prior to his or her attaining the age of majority.  Any supplemental petition to extend child support must be filed before the support obligation terminates.

Can I Get My Family's Diamond Engagement Ring Back in My Divorce?

Divorce clients often ask whether an engagement ring is considered a marital asset in subject to equitable distribution.  In the case of short-term marriages, some Husbands will even inquire whether the ring will be returned to them.  

Under Florida law, when the parties become married, the Husband no longer has any right to seek a return of the engagement ring.  Nor is the ring marital property to be included in the equitable distribution scheme.  In short, the ring is simply a premarital gift that is owned solely by the Wife.  See Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Greenberg v. Greenberg, 698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Most clients accept that the law allows the Wife to keep her engagement ring.  The issue is more complex where the ring is a "family heirloom" that previously belonged to a member of the Husband's family.  

In one case, the Husband asked the Judge to order that the "heirloom" ring be returned to him.  The Court did so, ordering that the ring would be passed on to one of the parties' children.  Florida's Second District Court of Appeal reversed this "Solomonic" decision, reasoning that there is no special consideration for a ring that is a family heirloom.  See Randall v. Randall, 56 So. 3d 817, 818-819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

In Randall, there was no reference to any agreement requiring the Wife to return the ring in the event of a divorce.  If the parties reached any agreement, the Husband may have a civil claim to recover the ring. 

If you have questions about your rights in a dissolution of marriage case, contact an experienced Tampa family law attorney.

Debtor's Prison: Is an Award of Florida Family Law Attorneys' Fees Enforceable by Contempt?

There is much confusion among parties in Florida family law cases - and certain practicing attorneys - regarding which obligations are enforceable by the court's contempt powers.

One of the more common questions that arises is whether a client "has to pay" an award of attorneys' fees ordered by the court.  Generally speaking, no one wants to pay "the enemy."

Long ago, our society determined that we should not have "debtors' prisons."  In other words, a free person cannot be threatened with imprisonment for failure to pay his or her debts.

This right is expressly protected by Article I, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution.  But, the courts  have fashioned an exception to that rule for family support obligations, such as child support and alimony.

The courts have reasoned that the obligation to pay spousal or child support is a personal duty owed to both the former spouse or child and to society rather than a debt within the meaning of article I, section 11.  See Gibson v. Bennett, 561 So. 2d 565, 570 (Fla. 1990).

"The courts have a duty to provide an effective, realistic means for enforcing a support order, or the parent or former spouse for all practical purposes becomes immune from an order for support."    Gibson, 561 So. 2d at 570.  This duty includes enforcement of a judgment through contempt because "a remedy at law that is ineffective in practice is not an adequate remedy."  Id.

The use of contempt in a family law case is premised on the assumed necessity for the special protection and enforcement of rights growing out of the family relationship.  See Fishman v. Fishman, 656 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 1995).  This rule has been extended to include the enforcement of payments of attorney's fees related to family law proceedings.  Id.  Attorneys' fees in family law cases are considered a form of support, as the expense of litigating matters pertaining to family obligations should be borne by the family in the same manner as other expenses.

Although the Court may employ its contempt powers to enforce payment of an attorney's fee award, that power is not without limits.  Civil contempt is appropriate only if the party to be held in contempt has the present ability to comply with the court's order and thereby avoid incarceration or other sanctions.  See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1278 (Fla. 1985).

Waste and Dissipation Claims: Is There a Statute of Limitations?

In a divorce proceeding, clients often ask how far back the Court will look when assessing whether a party engaged in waste or dissipation of marital assets. Equitable distribution of marital assets is governed by section 61.075, Florida Statutes.

Under section 61.075, the court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal, unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all relevant factors. Section 61.075(1)(i) requires trial courts to consider intentional dissipation that occurs up to two (2) years prior to filing the petition.

Dissipation occurs where one spouse uses marital funds for his or her own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. See Roth v. Roth, 973 So. 2d 580, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing  Romano v. Romano, 632 So. 2d 207, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)).

Too often, a divorce attorney will advise clients that you can only prove waste or dissipation that occurred with the past two (2) years. The statute, however, is silent as to intentional waste or dissipation that may have occurred more remotely in time. If your spouse intentionally dissipated marital assets three years prior to the filing date, is there any recourse?

 Courts have held that the legislature did not intend to preclude consideration of waste or dissipation beyond two years. See, e.g., Beers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109, 114-15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Amos v. Amos, 99 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).  Intentional dissipation of marital assets occurring more than two years prior to filing a petition for dissolution may, in some instances, be a factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.  Clearly, a party should not be able to transfer significant assets outside the marital estate, wait two years, and then file for divorce.  Courts have considered waste and dissipation beyond two years under the catchall provision of section 61.075(1)(j).  Id.  But, the Court has great discretion in deciding whether to consider any evidence of waste or dissipation that occurred more years prior to the filing date.

Life Insurance to Secure Alimony and Child Support

Clients often ask about whether the Court will require a party to procure life insurance to secure their alimony or child support obligation.  Like many legal questions, the answer is "it depends."

Courts do have the authority to order a party to provide term life insurance to secure his or her child support and alimony payments. See Fla. Stat. §§ 61.08(3), 61.13(1)(c); Sobelman v. Sobelman, 541 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 1989). 

When determining whether life insurance is appropriate, the court will consider the need for the insurance, the cost and availability of the insurance, and the financial impact upon the obligor.  See Child v. Child, 34 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). See also Byers v. Byers, 910 So. 2d 336, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). 

Florida courts have held, however, that certain "special circumstances" must be present to require a payor to purchase life insurance on his or her alimony or child support obligation. See Child v. Child, 34 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Massam v. Massam, 993 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Melo v. Melo, 864 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So.2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). 

But, the "special circumstances" are not particularly difficult to prove.  The special circumstances may be present where the former spouse would face difficult financial circumstances if the support payments were to cease upon the death of the obligor.  The circumstances may be present where the surviving party has limited earning capacity or children to support.  See, e.g., Child v. Child, 34 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Kotlarz v. Kotlarz, 21 So. 3d 892, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Richardson v. Richardson, 900 So.2d 656, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Massam v. Massam, 993 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Davidson v. Davidson, 882 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

If the special circumstances are present, the Party requesting the life insurance must establish that the amount of insurance sought is available at an affordable cost.  See Massam, 993 So. 2d at 1022; Rubinstein v. Rubinstein, 866 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 755 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); and Schere v. Schere, 645 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). 

If you have questions about alimony or child support, please contact us to consult an experienced Tampa divorce and family law attorney.

Prenuptial Agreements and Estate Planning Considerations: ‘Till Death Do Us Part

       Nearly 80,000 Florida residents file for divorce each year.  And, Florida has the nation’s highest percentage of residents over the age of 65.  Many people enter into a second marriage with significant assets and adult children.  Accordingly, it is often important to consult an experienced Florida family law attorney for a prenuptial agreement that addresses address both marital and estate planning issues.

Florida adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (the “UPAA”), which expressly provides that parties may reach a binding contract on the following issues:  (i) the parties’ rights and obligations concerning any assets and liabilities; (ii) the right to buy, sell, use, transfer, or dispose of property; (iii) the distribution of property upon separation, dissolution, death, or other event; (iv) the right to alimony; (v) the making of a will or trust; and (vi) the disposition of life insurance proceeds.  See Fla. Stat. § 61.079(4)(a).

It is imperative to understand the estate and probate rights that may be waived by a spouse.  See Fla. Stat. § 732.702.  For example, a surviving spouse normally has the right to receive an “elective share” of the deceased spouse’s estate (under current law, 30% of the elective estate as defined in Chapter 732, Part II, Florida Statutes). 

A surviving spouse also has special rights to homestead real property.  A decedent may not freely devise homestead real property upon death if survived by a spouse or minor child.  See Fla. Stat. § 732.4015.  The surviving spouse is entitled to a life estate in the property or, upon election, an undivided one-half interest.  See Fla. Stat. §§ 732.401 and 732.4015.  The property is exempt from any claims by the decedent’s creditors.  See Art. X, Sec. 4, Fla. Const. 

Additionally, if a spouse dies intestate (i.e., without a will), a surviving spouse is entitled to a specific share of the estate.  See Fla. Stat. § 732.102.  If a person marries after making a will, the surviving spouse is entitled to receive an intestate share of the estate.  See Fla. Stat. § 732.301.  A surviving spouse is also entitled to receive up to $20,000 in certain exempt property.  See Fla. Stat. § 732.402.  A surviving spouse is separately entitled to receive up to $18,000 in “family allowance” for support during the administration of an estate.  See Fla. Stat. § 732.403.  Finally, a surviving spouse has preference in appointment to serve as personal representative of a decedent’s intestate estate. 

All of these rights may be waived in a prenuptial agreement.  See, e.g., Fla. Stat. §§ 732.701 and 732.702 (to the extent the prenuptial agreement affects estate and probate rights, it must satisfy all other applicable formalities).  The prenuptial agreement, however, may include language requiring the parties to make a will or trust, to give a devise, or not to revoke a will or devise.  See Fla. Stat. §§ 61.079(4)(a) and 732.702.  A practitioner must be prepared to advise clients on any rights that are being waived and avenues to protect the client’s interests.

Do I have to pay child support if I receive disability payments from the government?

One common question is whether a parent has to pay child support if the children are receiving social security payments as a result of the parent's disability.

The short answer is that social security payments do not negate the obligation to pay child support.  A disabled parent, however, does receive credit for the social security paid for the benefit of the children.  In some cases, especially where the disabled parent has no other income, these payments may actually exceed the support obligation.  The fact of the matter is that, to make any determination, you should still have a Florida family law attorney or other qualified person apply the Florida child support guidelines, properly taking into account any social security benefits paid to the children.

Under the Florida child support guidelines, social security is treated as income for purposes of calculating the parents' child support obligation.  Specifically, under section 61.30(2)(a)(8), the social security benefits are treated as income to the disabled parent.  The disabled parent, however, also receives credit for paying support equal to the amount of the social security received on behalf of the children.  In other words, the social security funds are hypothetically earned by the disabled parent and paid by that parent to the children.

This rule was established by the First District Court of Appeals in Williams v. Williams, 560 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).  In Williams, the trial court failed to credit a disabled father for social security payments received by the mother on behalf of their three children.  The court ordered that, in addition to the disability funds the mother received directly, the father also had to pay child support out of his own disability payments.  As a result, after satisfying his child support obligations, the father had no money from which to live.  The First District found that the court erred when calculating the child support guideline amount by failing properly to account for the social security payments received by the children.

In most cases, the social security payments will exceed the disabled parent's obligation to pay support.  This is especially true where the disabled parent has no other material income.

Is Per Diem Properly Included in Income for Purposes of Calculating Florida Child Support?

As a Tampa family law attorney, I handle a large number of military divorces.  These cases present a number of unique issues.  One of the issues that often arises is how to account for military allowances and benefits from a family law perspective.  Service members frequently do not understand that, for purposes of calculating child support, income is defined much more broadly than taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code.  As any military divorce attorney will tell you, clients in the armed forces are often disappointed to learn that, while certain compensation is left off the tax return, those benefits are usually income under the Florida child support guidelines.

Not all payments and benefits received, however, constitute income.  Many military service members and civilian employees receive an allowance for travel and other expenses.  This pay is commonly referred to as a per diem allowance.  Per diem is a Latin term, which literally means "per day."  The term most often refers to the amount of money the company, government, or other organization will pay each day to cover living and travel expenses incurred in connection with work.

One of our recent military divorce clients involved a reservist that planned to spend an entire year on a security detail in the Middle East.  As part of the contract, the client was scheduled to receive a per diem for certain expenses.  An obvious issue in the client's divorce was whether the per diem would be included in income for purposes of calculating the client's Florida child support obligation.

Pursuant to section 61.30(2)(a)(13), Florida Statutes, reimbursed expenses, including per diem allowances, may be included in income for purposes of calculating child support.  These payments, however, are only included to the extent that the payment reduces the recipient's living expenses.

Very few appellate decisions help family law attorneys interpret this standard.  Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal provided some insight in Lauro v. Lauro, 757 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the husband testified that the per diem he received was insufficient to cover the actual expenses he incurred when he was away from home on business.

The wife could present no evidence to the contrary but argued that, if the husband is paid per diem to cover his meals away from home, he does not have to buy groceries for dinner at home.  The court rejected her argument for two reasons.  First, the per diem at issue was a flat rate per day which did not necessarily cover the actual expenses incurred by the husband.  Second, even if the husband were reimbursed for the exact amount he spent on a meal away from home, any reduction in his living expenses at home because he did not have to buy groceries was de minimus.  Trial judges should not be reduced to having to decide how much a spouse, who was reimbursed for a meal while traveling, would have spent on a can of soup or a frozen dinner at home.

Based on this reasoning, we can expect the best divorce attorneys to argue that a per diem will not be included in income for purposes of calculating child support unless the allowance exceeds the actual expense or eliminates a material expense, such as housing, that otherwise would have been incurred.