Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law Lawyer | Boynton Beach

Iowa Husband and Wife are divorcing after nearly twenty years of marriage. They have three Children together.

Wife works part-time as a nurse and seeks alimony from Husband, a supervising mechanic.

Husband contends that Wife should work full-time to earn more money and receive benefits. Husband asks the court to reduce spousal support following a ten year period.

Wife has had multiple sclerosis since before the parties’ marriage. One of the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, a sometimes disabling disease, is extreme fatigue.

Wife maintains that she cannot work full-time because she requires a day off for rest after two days of work.

Wife’s medications to treat her multiple sclerosis will cost a whopping $4,300 per month if her coverage through Husband’s health insurance plan ends.

Husband earns five times Wife’s salary from his primary employment and his part-time work on the side.

At trial, the family court awards Wife $600 per month in permanent alimony. The divorce court further orders Husband to maintain Wife on his insurance as long as is permitted. The family court also awards Wife primary custody of their Children and awards Wife child support.

Both Husband and Wife appeal the family court’s rulings at trial.

On appeal, the intermediate level appellate court increases Wife’s award of permanent alimony to $700 per month, but reduces the award of child support. Otherwise, the court upholds the trial court’s rulings.

On appeal to Iowa’s highest court, the intermediate appellate court’s rulings are upheld.

Read more in this Iowa family court case.

Canadians lament that alimony, or spousal support, is “all over the map” and unpredictable in cases where the paying spouse has high earnings, over $350,000.

In the US, some would say that alimony is all over the map across the board, regardless of the paying spouse’s income.

Why?

In a nutshell, in the US, states do not have alimony guidelines, formulae or charts to guide (or constrain) court awards, as they do for child support.

That is really the long and short of why spousal support awards may be inconsistent and unpredictable.

As in Canada, settling alimony disputes via mediation maintains greater privacy and reduces risk.

Read more in this Canadian Lawyer article: All over the map.

New York Mother and Father have a child together.

Mother and Father, if married, divorce, or, if unmarried, just go their own separate ways.

Then Father relocates to South Florida.

Afterwards, Mother serves Father in a New York action for child support, or enforcement of child support. (Or alimony, or enforcement of alimony, or enforcement of property division agreement or judgment, or enforcement of parenting plan or judgment, etc., etc.)

Living in South Florida now, Father visits a local South Florida divorce lawyer and South Florida family law attorney for help with his defense in this case.

Only, Father is surprised to learn, his local South Florida divorce lawyer and South Florida family law attorney won’t – can’t – help him.

Why not?

Mother’s case is a New York family law case, not a Florida family court case.

And only an attorney licensed to practice law in New York and admitted to practice law in New York may appear and represent a party in a New York family law court case.

That means Father needs a New York divorce lawyer and New York family law attorney (or New York child support lawyer or New York alimony attorney or New York child custody attorney) and so on.

At first blush, it probably sounds like this could get pretty inconvenient and expensive for Father to identify and consult with a New York attorney. And it could.

But it doesn’t have to … Because a New York attorney doesn’t have to be based in New York.

She might have an office right down the street here in South Florida. As I do.

If Father is lucky, his local South Florida divorce lawyer and South Florida family law attorney may refer him to a New York divorce lawyer and New York family law attorney who is located here in South Florida.

But, if not, Father should be able to locate one on his own, now that he knows what he’s looking for.

Needless to say, the above would also apply if Mother was the ex-spouse or parent who had relocated to Florida, instead of Father.

And the same rationale applies for any other state an ex-spouse or parent may have relocated from. New York is just an excellent illustration of the principle, because there are so many transplanted New Yorkers here in South Florida.

You lost your job.

Or your hours were reduced.

Or just your pay.

You’ve been trying to keep up with your court-ordered child support.

And/or your court-ordered alimony and spousal support.

But you just can’t do it.

You’re falling further and further behind.

You keep hoping your hours or pay will go back up.

Or maybe that you’ll be able to find a new job, or a second job that will enable you to meet your current obligations, maybe even to catch up.

So you just keep on waiting and hoping … and struggling.

Imagining that you can always go back to court later to deal with any arrearages. (Wrong.)

Soon, your past due support is really out of control.

And, eventually, your ex files to take you back to court because of your arrearages.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Unfortunately, you. Your waiting and hoping.

That didn’t do you any good at all. In fact, it hurt you really badly.

When you are subject to a court-ordered support obligation, whether it’s alimony and spousal support or child support, if you suffer an interruption and/or reduction in your income, you must take swift legal action to modify your alimony and spousal support obligations and/or to modify your child support obligations. No ifs, ands or buts.

Under Florida family law, you cannot reduce your alimony and spousal support obligations or your child support obligations retroactively. In other words, a Florida family court cannot do anything about arrearages you’ve already racked up. You’re stuck with them.

That is why it’s absolutely critical to file a modification of support case immediately. As soon as disaster strikes.

Under Florida divorce and child support law, you can reduce your alimony and spousal support obligations or your child support obligations prospectively, or going forward. In other words, a Florida family court can reduce your support obligations going forward, from the date that you file for modification of support.

So, prompt filing of your modification of child support case and/or modification of alimony and spousal support case is the only way to beat a pile-up of arrearages.

Please don’t be like the many people who wait far too long before consulting Florida divorce and family law attorneys like me about enormous arrearages they’ve already accrued since losing a job.

An intriguing question that doesn’t come up too often.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Husband agrees to pay Wife alimony as part of their divorce settlement.

Such alimony is deductible by Husband on his income taxes and includible by Wife on her income taxes.

Now, after the divorce is finalized, Husband and Wife agree that Husband will pay Wife some additional spousal support. It isn’t entirely clear whether this would happen just once, or each and every month.

Does this additional support receive the same tax treatment?

Based on these facts, no.

For spousal support to be deductible by the paying spouse and includible by the receiving spouse, that spousal support must be mandated by a settlement agreement and/or court order.

Of course, if Husband is willing to commit to paying the additional support over time, Husband and Wife can formally modify their divorce settlement.

If they did so, then the additional spousal support should be deductible by the paying spouse and includible by the receiving spouse.

Failing that, the additional alimony is deemed to be a gift for tax purposes.

Please note that any U.S. federal tax advice contained here is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter that is contained in this blog.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: Ask the taxgirl: Voluntary Spousal Support

West Virginia Husband and Wife divorce.

The family court orders Husband to pay Wife alimony and child support.

Two years after the divorce is final, Husband discovers that one of the couple’s children is not his biological offspring.

But, under state law, Husband must continue to pay child support despite conclusive proof of nonpaternity.

So Husband stops paying alimony. To the tune of $27,000.

Wife takes Husband to court to enforce his alimony obligation and to collect accrued arrearages.

Husband is sentenced to six months in jail.

Interestingly, an internet dating site for people currently in a relationship but who are looking to wander outside their relationship, offers to pay Husband’s accrued alimony obligation. Husband refuses on principle

Two months into serving his sentence, Husband agrees to pay Wife’s alimony. $15,000 in a lump sum, with the balance in monthly payments.

Husband vows to mount campaign against paternity fraud.

Read more in this Parkersburg [WV] News and Sentinel article: Keefe agrees to pay alimony.

To a large extent, alimony is a roll of the dice. Not so much whether alimony will be awarded, but how much – and for how long.

Not just in Florida, but in many states.

By contrast, most states, like Florida, have child support guidelines. A formula or calculation to determine child support.

This simplifies child support calculations and facilitates amicable resolution of child support disputes.

But such clarity continues to elude alimony.

But when New York finally adopted no-fault divorce last year, it legislated a formula for calculating temporary alimony.

Yet, for whatever reason, the New York legislature stopped at temporary alimony. It might have pushed the envelope just a little bit further and applied the formula to all alimony cases, at least as a starting point.

Two other states have adopted formulae for temporary alimony. At the same time, there is currently a good deal of pressure to broadly modify alimony laws across the nation.

The latter seems almost inevitable. If so, perhaps legislatures will seize the opportunity to implement guidelines in temporary as well as final alimony determinations.

Read more in this New York Times editorial: Ending the Alimony Guessing Game.

Whether it’s the economy or other forces at work, prenuptial agreements, or prenups, continue to gain popularity. While it used to typically be the husband-to-be who requested a prenup, these days it is slightly more likely to be the wife-to-be seeking it.

Prenups are no longer just about protecting assets. In this age of runaway debt, they are also about protecting one spouse from the other’s debt.

Some common mistakes to avoid are:

• Getting it done with only one attorney and thinking that that attorney represents both fiances. One attorney cannot represent the interests of both intendeds.

• Not knowing the property division law in the state in question.

• Not knowing how to enter a calm and clear-headed discussion about the issues with the other future spouse.

• Not carefully reviewing the agreement and not taking its words at face value. The less-endowed partner should be wary of provisions intended to regulate behavior … or deny the existence of any marital property that the less endowed spouse would leave the marriage with.

• Giving up too much without adequate consideration of long term consequences. For example, how would a stay at home caregiver and homemaker for many years support themself in the event of divorce if they waive alimony in the agreement?

Read more in this Reuters Wealth piece- Prenup: 5 ways to protect your assets and your marriage.

New Zealand Husband and Wife’s marriage hits the rocks.

Husband is – or at least was – quite wealthy. In 2006, Husband disclosed to a potential creditor assets worth $28 million and an annual income of $1 million.

According to Wife, Husband owns about 135 businesses and numerous properties and trusts.

Wife, on the other hand, appears to be on public assistance due to Husband allegedly withholding reasonable support.

In response, Husband claims to be bankrupted by $180 million in debt and contends that the couple’s debt exceeds their assets.

The New Zealand Family Court freezes Husband’s bank accounts and stocks.

Wife asserts that Husband’s life style has been constant since before the divorce, although he may have created an appearance on paper of hardship.

The New Zealand Family Court appears to be stuck in the middle, persuaded of the reality of Husband’s enormous legal debt load.

The couple separated in 2007 and their case was filed in or before 2008. But there does not appear to be an end in sight.

Read more in this New Zealand Stuff news article: Bankrupt keeps life of luxury says wife.

A case on appeal before the Tennesse Supreme Court reflects tensions and shifts in alimony practice that are playing out nationwide.

Husband and Wife are ending a long-term marriage (roughly twenty years) that began in college. They were forty-three when their divorce was filed.

Both spouses have worked throughout their marriage. Husband earns about $137,000 in the private sector and Wife earns roughly half that in a government job.

Because of the length of Husband’s and Wife’s marriage and the disparity in their incomes, a lower court ordered Husband to pay Wife permanent alimony of $1,250 per month.

On appeal by Husband, the heart of his challenge is that, despite the disparity in their incomes and the substantial length of their marriage, Wife is not dependent because she worked throughout the marriage and the divorcing spouses are too young for the court to order permanent alimony, especially in such a large amount.

(In contrast to a divorcing couple with a long-term marriage where the Wife was / is a stay-at-home mother for a significant period of time and would potentially be entering / returning to the job market over the age of fifty. Clearly, an intended beneficiary of the law providing for permanent alimony.)

The Tennessee high court’s forthcoming ruling could impact the future evolution of permanent alimony awards in Tennessee. And, possibly, beyond.

Read more in this [Franklin, IN] Daily Journal news article: Tenn. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in lifetime alimony case.

Colorado Husband and Wife are in the process of divorcing.

Husband is required to pay Wife alimony or spousal support of $2,500 per month.

Wife disappears while walking her dog a couple of months ago.

Police suspect foul play in Wife’s disappearance, but don’t appear to have any solid leads.

Authorities have impounded Husband’s girlfriend’s automobile though.

Husband apparently seeks to modify temporary spousal support.

A Colorado family court judge, however, orders Husband to continue to pay the previously ordered alimony.

Read more in this [Denver] ABC 7 News article: Missing Woman’s Husband Must Keep Paying Alimony.

Husband and Wife marry in their early twenties.

Husband and Wife divorce … less than five years later.

The divorce court awards Wife what Massachusetts calls “lifetime” alimony of $65 per week.

Thirty years later, Husband is still paying Wife $65 each week. Which may not seem like such a burden in this day and age.

But Wife now seeks to modify her alimony award upward.

And the family court grants Wife’s request.

So, thirty years after their divorce, Husband must now pay his long ago Wife of under five years … $700 … per week.

And so it goes … in Massachusetts, where lifetime alimony is commonplace, even in short-term marriages. (Not so in Florida, unless there are unusual, special circumstances.)

Reformers have been targeting this alimony and spousal support law for several years, arguing that it does not fit modern values and expectations.

Proposed legislation would all but do away with “lifetime” alimony, limit the duration of all alimony based on the length of the marriage, end alimony at retirement age, and even impose a ceiling on the amount of alimony that can be court-ordered.

The proposed legislation also introduces different types of alimony, to address different possible particular needs of dependent spouses. For example, rehabilitative alimony for career training or retraining.

Whether the proposed changes in the alimony law are good or bad are, of course, subjective and depend upon whether one more closely identifies with a payor or a recipient.

Read more in this Albany [NY] Times Union article: Mass. considers ending ‘lifetime alimony’.

Sixty-five year old Indian Man lives with thirty year old Woman for three years in India.

Man puts Woman out of his home.

Now Woman seeks alimony and spousal support.

Man objects, asserting that Woman is his housekeeper and not even his wife.

Family court awards Woman temporary alimony.

Man appeals.

The appellate court affirms the divorce court’s ruling, holding that stringent proof of a valid marriage is not necessary at the temporary relief stage of the case. It is sufficient that the two gave the appearance of a married couple.

Read more in this Indian Express News Service article: Marriage valid or not, man must pay alimony: Court.

Despite her award of alimony and spousal support in her divorce, Utah Ex-Wife has trouble establishing a residence after her divorce.

She spends a significant part of her time at her parents’ home.

Ex-Wife’s parents have six foster children living under their roof, all boys.

Ex-Wife allegedly engages in an ongoing sexual relationship with one of her parents’ foster children.

Ex-Husband files to terminate his alimony and spousal support obligation on the grounds that Ex-Wife is cohabitating with the foster child.

At trial, the family court finds that Ex-Wife sleeps at her parents’ home “at least 80 percent of her nights”, and that theirs is her primary residence. Based in part on input from Ex-Wife’s children.

Therefore, the divorce court rules that Ex-Wife is indeed cohabitating with the foster child, and holds that Ex-Wife’s spousal support should terminate.

Ex-Wife appeals. An intermediate level appellate court rules that “cohabitation” only occurs in the context of a conjugal relationship in the nature of a marriage, and reinstates Ex-Wife’s alimony.

And now Ex-Husband appeals to the state’s highest court. Which is expected to rule in the near future.

Several states have statutory provisions permitting termination of alimony and spousal support upon “cohabitation” with another person who is not a relative. But the precise definition of cohabitation is, probably intentionally, rarely nailed down in the statutory scheme.

Florida’s statute is couched in terms of a “supportive relationship” which is akin to a committed long-term relationship.

And yet a local Florida intermediate level appellate court found such a relationship in the former wife’s so-called “cohabitation” with a cellmate in jail. See my previous post, Alimony Terminates Because Ex-Wife is Deemed to Cohabitate with Cellmate Under Florida Settlement Agreement.

Read more in this [Salt Lake City] Deseret News article: High court to determine if sex with teen should stop alimony.

New York Wife receives monthly alimony of $850. This spousal support award is based, at least in part, upon an alleged disability that purportedly prevents Wife from working.

Husband, who is the one paying Wife the alimony, would, of course, prefer to be relieved of his burden. Husband keeps his eyes peeled for opportunities to put an end to it.

And then Husband finds …

Wife’s online blog. With photos of Wife belly dancing.

And entries to the effect that Wife belly dances – vigorously – several hours each and every day.

So, Husband files family court papers to modify his alimony obligation. Wife defends that her belly dancing is purely physical therapy.

But the New York family court sees things differently.

And reduces Wife’s permanent spousal support. To less than half the original amount. And to only two years’ duration.

And awards Husband his attorney’s fees from Wife.

And orders Wife to vacate and sell the marital home … and pay Husband sixty (60%) percent of the net proceeds of sale.

Subsequently, Wife reportedly asserts that she is merely “posing” in some posted photos and that she can and does only gentle stretches, not true belly dancing.

Medical evidence, or even evidence of legal “disability status”, are conspicuous by their apparent absence from the case.

If the ruling seems harsh, it appears that the divorce court concludes that Wife has misrepresented her disability to the court and, in doing so, has defrauded the court. And that doesn’t sit well with the court.

Read more in:

• this [Vero Beach, FL] Student Operated Press article: ‘Disabled’ Lady Posts Belly Dancing Pics Online, Judge Cuts Her Alimony In Half

• this [UK] Daily Mail article: ‘Disabled’ wife who lost alimony payments over belly dancing photos says she was only posing and

• this New York post article: ‘Disabled’ woman seeking alimony revealed to be belly dancer

Australian Husband and Wife have two children.

Husband and Wife split up.

The Australian family court orders Husband to pay Wife $800 per week as temporary support, based upon their pre-separation standard of living.

Later, the Australian family court modifies the support award down to $300 per week.

Wife now seeks increased child support for Son and spousal support for herself. Wife claims that her weekly household expenses come to $1,800.

Among the expenses in Wife’s budget: $60 for their son’s meals at McDonalds over the course of one week.

Husband insists that he cannot afford more than $300 per week.

The Australian family court modifies the support award back up to the originally ordered $800 per week.

But maintains that Wife must adjust her children’s and her own lifestyles and expenses. Such as cutting back on Son’s McDonald’s spending.

Read more in this Australian Herald Sun news article: Mum claims for son’s $60 Maccas habit and this Australian MSN 9 TV news article: Woman bills ex for son’s $60pw ‘Macca’s habit’.

South Carolina Husband and Wife divorce.

The family court awards Wife permanent alimony and spousal support.

The family court also awards Wife a portion of Husband’s pension toward her share of equitable distribution and property division.

Some time after the divorce, Husband presses a modification action to terminate alimony or, at the least, reduce alimony.

Husband contends that there has been a substantial change in circumstances in that Husband (and Wife) are now receiving payouts from Husband’s pension. Husband argues that Wife’s alimony should be reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of the pension that she is now receiving.

The family court now rules that there is a substantial change of circumstances. And reduces, but does not terminate, the amount of alimony payable to Wife.

The family court also awards Wife her attorney’s fees in this modification proceeding.

Husband appeals the family court’s ruling on his modification case.

The appellate court holds that the alimony rulings made by the family court are within the family court’s exercise of discretion and affirms the family court’s rulings.

The appellate court also holds that the original property division award of the pension cannot be factored in to any modification, because the family court originally took it into account when it fashioned the original property division and alimony awards. Lastly, the appellate court upholds the award of attorney’s fees to Wife.

Read more in this [Orangeburg SC] Times and Democrat article: Court upholds divorce order.

It can be frustrating – and worse – waiting for – or trying to enforce – past due alimony (also known as spousal support) (or, for that matter, child support) obligations. Especially when months turn into years.

Well, a woman in India waited nearly thirty years. Not to collect her alimony, mind you.

Just to get her court order for spousal support.

It seems she was divorced in 1983. And, for whatever reason, failed to seek alimony or child support in the original divorce proceedings.

Then, years later, in 1995, she petitioned the Indian family court to award her alimony and spousal support.

It is unclear whether her original divorce proceedings reserved on the issue of alimony for some reason or addressed the issue of spousal support in any way at all.

The woman apparently took the position in her 1995 family court filing that she hadn’t known of her legal right to alimony and spousal support at the time of her original divorce.

Indian law, however, apparently allows for new alimony claims to be filed after the original divorce is concluded, provided the spouse filing the claim has not yet remarried.

But the woman’s spousal support claim took seventeen years to “process” through the Indian family court. Seventeen.

(Which undoubtedly makes most of us feel much better about the speed and efficiency of our courts here in Florida and throughout the US.)

But, although it took nearly forever, the Indian court did eventually reward the woman with both a court order for alimony and a court order for child support. (Their child has, of course, since become a legal adult.)

Needless to say, the woman’s ex-husband appealed the Indian family court’s alimony and child support rulings.

But the Indian appellate court upheld the lower court’s spousal support and child support awards to the woman.

It is unknown whether the woman’s ex-husband has been complying with his court-ordered support obligations pending the outcome of his appeal. He reportedly operates his own (likely cash) business … and so does his current spouse.

But the woman is certainly making progress.

Read more in this Indian Express Limited article: 28 yrs after divorce, woman gets alimony and this New Delhi Television article: Woman gets alimony 28 years after divorce.

Times change. Or, as one of my law school professors used to put it, “the pendulum swings”.

Tennessee Husband and Wife are divorcing.

Husband and Wife have been married for 21 years.

Husband and Wife have two adult children together.

Husband earns $137,000 per year.

Wife, who is 43 years old, earns a considerably lesser $72,000.

At trial, the family court denies Wife any alimony whatsoever.

On appeal by Wife, an intermediate level appellate court awards Wife $1,250 in monthly alimony for life, unless she remarries.

This time, Husband appeals.

The assertion under Tennessee law is that such an award is not appropriate, because the Wife is not 50 or older, and/or was not married to Husband long enough and/or did not sacrifice her career sufficiently for the marriage, and/or Wife is not unable to obtain a “good” job.

Policy considerations include that permanent alimony allegedly has the unintended side effect of discouraging long-term marriages. Husband further argues that Wife is discouraged from remarrying with such a permanent alimony award.

Wife, on the other hand, maintains that she deserves permanent alimony, arguing that she once worked two jobs to get Husband through school so that he could get to the point where his career is now.

At a high level, as in Florida, Tennessee looks to the paying spouse’s ability to pay alimony and the receiving spouse’s need for alimony.

The trial court seems to be more in tune with the trend sweeping the nation … now, than the intermediate appellate court. The pendulum has swung … again.

Under Florida law, significance is still attached to the fact that the marriage endured more than twenty years, but the relatively young age of the Wife and her actual earnings history would not be overlooked by a Florida court either.

Read more in this Knoxville [TN] News Sentinel article: Tennessee Supreme Court considers life alimony.

It’s tax season.

Alimony or spousal support is deductible by the paying spouse or ex.

Alimony or spousal support is includible by the receiving spouse or ex.

As long as the alimony is required by a court order. One adopting and approving a settlement agreement will suffice.

End of discussion? Not quite.

Note that the alimony or spousal support check doesn’t have to be made out to the spouse or ex, or even given to them directly.

Payments made directly to a third party for the spouse or ex’s account are treated as alimony or spousal support … as long as the payments are required by court order. Again, one adopting and approving terms of settlement will do.

Examples of third party payments that may fall under this heading are medical expenses paid to health care providers, rent or mortgage payments paid to landlord or lender, tuition payments made to an educational institution, life insurance premiums paid to an insurer, auto insurance payments made to an insurer, car payments made to a lessor or lender, etc., etc.

Similarly, if a spouse is required to make the entire mortgage payment on a home co-owned with a spouse or ex, half the payment may be deducted as alimony or spousal support by the paying spouse or ex.

If a spouse is required to pay real estate taxes and/or insurance on a home co-owned as tenants in common (the most common arrangement after divorce), half the payment may be deducted as alimony or spousal support by the paying ex.

But taxes and insurance are not deductible by the paying ex if the former spouses own the real estate as joint tenants after the divorce (less likely).

Type of real property ownership is a technical legal issue with nontax consequences as well as tax consequences.

Each spouse should consult with their own attorney regarding which type of real state ownership best suits their particular needs, and also to ensure that the new deeds are drafted so as to conform to those needs.

Read more in this Main Street piece: Tax Tip: Deductible Alimony.

Husband and Wife are in the middle of their divorce.

Husband works for a California City.

Husband allegedly promotes his Girlfriend from a low level purely administrative position to a high level supervisory position.

The City then demotes Husband for violating the City’s employee romance policy.

Husband’s demotion costs Husband $36,000 in annual salary.

And, according to Wife, costs her substantial lost alimony and retirement benefits as well.

Which is why Wife is suing the City for approximately $4 million in damages.

Wife asserts that Girlfriend is so glaringly underqualified that Husband’s supervisors were negligent in supervising him. Girlfriend, however, remains in the position to which Husband promoted her.

Husband is also suing the City, in a separate lawsuit.

There is some dispute as to whether City’s formal prohibition on supervisors romantic entanglement with subordinates was in effect at the time Husband’s affair began. However, Husband’s supervisor reportedly objected to the two married City employees having an affair.

Some commentators conclude that Wife has no standing because she was not an employee of the City and she cannot prove any damages to herself, at least not until her divorce is final.

Read more in this Sacramento [CA] Bee article: Affair has legal fallout

Under current Utah law, no-fault divorce is available. And in such a divorce, fault is not a factor in determining alimony.

Proposed legislation is pending in Utah to modify this approach.

The bill would allow a judge to consider whether a stay-at-home, custodial parent was at fault in the divorce and, if not, award additional alimony toward the goal that they remain stay-at-home parents after the divorce.

Paradoxically, a different bill pending in Utah seeks to phase out permanent or long term (greater than five years) alimony. This mirrors debates and shifts in law playing out across the nation.

The role of fault in alimony and / or property division in no-fault divorce states such as Florida can be confusing. Some believe fault should be irrelevant.

Others believe that courts should be permitted to consider fault. Still others believe that economic fault alone should be considered.

Here in Florida, although divorce itself is granted without consideration of fault, the court may consider fault in both alimony or spousal support awards and in property division or equitable distribution. However, in practice, fault rarely comes into play unless the fault is economic in nature or the fault imposes an economic impact on the other spouse.

Read more in this [Salt Lake City] Desert News article: Bills would allow Utah judges to consider fault when awarding alimony.

Massachusetts has been struggling with alimony reform for quite some time. Like many states. Including Florida.

In Massachusetts, proposed legislation would limit how long alimony can generally be ordered for, based on the length of the marriage.

It would also protect a second spouse’s income from going to alimony to the former spouse. And end alimony upon cohabitation of the dependent spouse.

It would even permit a spouse to retire out of their alimony obligations.

All of these proposed amendments mirror trends sweeping the nation.

Florida has already passed its own version of alimony reform.

Read more in this Boston Herald article: What would change under alimony reform and this Boston Herald editorial: Antiquated law pure insanity.

Lower income spouses ending long term marriages in Florida are well-positioned for awards of permanent monthly alimony. But permanent alimony isn’t the only option – and may not be the best option in all cases.

Increasing numbers of dependent spouses, even seniors, are forgoing permanent monthly alimony in favor of lump sum alimony and / or divisions of property that are more generous to them than an equal division of property.

How come? Prompt and full payment of lump sum alimony and/or generous property divisions:

1. eliminate the risk of the paying spouse’s death in permanent alimony cases

2. eliminate the risk of the paying spouse’s unemployment in permanent alimony cases

3. eliminate the risk of having to chase the spouse for payments the spouse fails to make in permanent alimony cases

4. eliminate their own disincentive to remarrying or cohabitating in permanent alimony cases

5. buys their independence, cuts the cord from their ex and ends ongoing contact with their ex

But when the dependent spouse’s lump sum payment or share of divided property is gone, they will most likely be out of luck getting any monthly alimony.

Read more in this Reuters piece: Gray divorce: The question of alimony.

Taxpayers who have income from which taxes are not withheld are generally required to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the Internal Revenue Service.

What kind of income doesn’t provide witholding of income taxes?

Well, for one, alimony.

That’s right.

Alimony is generally included as taxable income for the recipient.

But no taxes on alimony income are withheld.

Therefore, in order to avoid penalties and interest, quarterly estimated taxes should be paid on it.

(Unless taxes are withheld on other income, in which case the amount of withholding can be adjusted upward to, in effect, withold sufficient taxes for the alimony.

Read more in this BankRate article: The skinny on paying estimated taxes.

Husband, an attorney, and Wife divorce in Minnesota in 1978.

The family court orders Husband to pay Wife $20,000 in alimony or spousal support.

Years later, Husband still hasn’t paid some of the alimony owed.

Husband claims to have a history a post traumatic stress disorder as a result of his military service, alcoholism, substance abuse, depression and schizophrenia, and that those conditions prevented him from continuing to practice law or earn a living.

But Wife obtains a judgment establishing Husband’s arrears for spousal support.

The years (in all, more than thirty of them) tick by and Husband still hasn’t paid all of the alimony he owes.

Wife sues him again every ten years … because that is how long a judgment is good for in Minnesota. Successive lawsuits are how the ten year limit is dealt with, procedurally, in Minnesota.

Wife’s most recent attempt to renew her judgment against Husband is, however, rejected by the divorce court, with a dismissal.

Husband’s position is that he did not have the ability to pay the ordered spousal support amounts at the times they were ordered.

It may reasonably be inferred that Husband does have the present ability to pay the judgments.

Legally, the primary issue under Minnesota law would seem to be how many times a support order (or, for that matter, any judgment) may be renewed.

Wife appeals the family court ruling to Minnesota’s Court of Appeals.

Which reverses the order denying renewal of her judgment against Husband.

Then Husband appeals that ruling.

And now final resolution of the issue rests with the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Florida judgments may be enforced for a period of up to twenty years if timely renewed before expiration.

Read more in this [Minneapolis-St. Paul] Pioneer Press article: 1970s alimony dispute isn’t over.

Some clients (or opposing parties) are really quite businesslike in their approach to divorce.

They know they want to settle and it is just a question of arriving at the right numbers through negotiation.

They almost always have very specific final numbers in mind.

It is not unheard of for them to encourage their partner to sign an agreement behind their attorney’s back if they have an attorney or, better yet, before they hire an attorney.

After all, it’s all about the numbers. Not words.

Right? Wrong.

When it comes to legal matters, the words actually matter quite a lot.

As just one example …

Imagine a one paragraph marital settlement agreement. Yes, there really are such things out there.

Such an agreement always gets straight to the point – and the number(s).

“Husband agrees to pay Wife $1 million as full settlement.”

Do-it-yourselfers too often favor this type of language.

But what does that $1 million payment represent?

Is it lump sum alimony?

Is it lump sum child support?

Is it property division?

Is it a combination of all of the above?

Who cares?

Well, the Internal Revenue Service for one.

Precisely what the money represents will bear directly on the tax consequences, if any, associated with the payment.

As a result, both spouses will become interested as well, sooner or later.

For example, unless there is an agreement otherwise, alimony payments are deductible by the spouse who makes them … and taxable as income to the spouse who receives them.

Child support is neither includible nor deductible.

Equalization payments are generally neither includible nor deductible, but payments made in kind (by transferring things) may have tax consequences, sometimes unforeseen and undesirable.

The point is, settlement isn’t just about the numbers at all. The words count a lot.

In the end, all that really matters is the bottom line numbers, not the numbers that may be referred to in the agreement. If the words aren’t right, the bottom line numbers may be very, very different from the numbers specified in the settlement.

And that can be an unpleasant surprise that can hit you between the eyes.

Read more in this Florida Times Union article: TTT – December 28, 2010, Divorce & Alimony.

Wedding approaching?

• Anticipating an inheritance?

• Active in a family owned business?

• Have children from a previous marriage you want to provide for?

• Accumulated premarital property?

These are just a few of the circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement, or prenup, should be considered.

Without a prenup, what happens in the event of a divorce, or one spouse’s death, can be uncertain or simply not what the spouses intended.

With a prenuptial agreement, intended spouses can reduce uncertainty and exert control over issues like property division and alimony in the event of a divorce, and inheritance in the event of a spouse’s death.

They may not be romantic, but prenups permit post-divorce (or post-death) financial affairs to be settled more rapidly, less expensively and more predictably.

Read more in this Local Tech Wire release: Premarital agreements – Hoping for the best, planning for the worst.

Scottish Husband and Wife have been married for about fifteen years. They have three Children together.

Husband and Wife have been separated for about two years.

Husband owns an oil company, and has been paying Wife a previously agreed upon amount of support.

Until Husband unilaterally cuts back on his payment, without notice to Wife, while he is away on business in the middle east.

Frustrated, Wife drives to Husband’s company’s business location, obstructs the entrance, and, wielding a loudspeaker, carries on a protest, with the intention of obtaining additional funds from Husband’s accountant.

Wife intends to repeat her protest until she get satisfaction.

Husband was fined by law enforcement authorities earlier in the year for e-mailing Wife abusive messages.

Read more in this Aberdeen [Scotland] Press and Journal article: Divorce wife ‘driven’ to protest at company.

Kuwaiti Husband and Wife made sexually explicit videotapes of themselves.

Husband and Wife are now divorcing.

The divorce court awards Wife alimony.

Husband is not happy about having to pay Wife alimony.

Husband threatens to put videos of Wife on the internet … unless Wife agrees to let Husband off the hook for alimony.

Police are investigating.

Similar scenarios are playing out increasingly frequently in divorces.

Read more in this [Dubai] Gulf News article: Wife gets blackmailed over alimony in Kuwait.