The Florida legislature will once again hear the call of alimony reform.
This month, a new bill will be introduced seeking to reform Florida's alimony laws.
Florida Alimony Reform, a grassroots organization founded in 2010, is at the forefront of change with its proposed legislation.
They are supported by the Second Wives Club, and its founder, Weston resident, Debbie Leff Israel.
The bill, filed by state Representative Ritch Workman, revises the factors a judge must consider when awarding alimony, including how much and for how long.
The most notable change sought by reform advocates is ending permanent alimony.
If the bill becomes law, it will reform alimony in the following key areas: Removal of permanent alimony from present statutes, except in cases where the party receiving alimony can prove that he/she is not self supporting.
The need for alimony payer to have the right to retire at Federal Retirement age or standard retirement age for high risk professions.
A defined amount based on a formula that is fair, and averages incomes for both spouses.
Second Wives' or husbands' income shall not be used to calculate an upward modification of alimony.
Attaching a decreasing term life insurance policy instead of a term, or whole life policy to the alimony payment so that insurance is affordable and ends when the alimony payment ends.
Make the law retroactive so that those saddled with alimony payments can get payments modified to comply with the new law.
The Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, many family law attorneys and members of the public who oppose the proposed changes to the law claim that reform is not needed.
The main reasons for opposing alimony reform are the arguments that permanent alimony is not permanent, meaning that it can be modified or terminated based on remarriage, cohabitation or a change in circumstances, and that removing permanent alimony will place many former spouses in financial peril.
Alimony reform advocates disagree with the "permanent is not always permanent" position and present numerous situations where a request to modify or terminate alimony has been denied despite a supportive relationship or a change in financial circumstances.
Advocates also point out that no one is seeking to eliminate alimony, but to make the laws more fair and to allow ex-spouses to financially disentangle themselves after a certain point in time.
I believe that there are situations where one party cannot support themselves, usually due to illness or disability, and, in some long term marriages, a person's age and lack of work experience could prevent them from becoming self-supporting.
In these cases, alimony may be the only way to prevent that person from plunging into poverty.
I am also concerned about retroactive modification in cases where there was an agreement which involved a compromise of receiving less assets in exchange for alimony.
That being said, I also believe reform is necessary.
The current laws allow for broad discretion in how much alimony can be awarded and for how long.
Modifying or terminating alimony is based almost solely on the financial ability of the paying former spouse, who cannot voluntarily reduce his or her income, while the receiving spouse, who can be educated, have prior work history and is employable, can choose not to work or to work only in a limited capacity for the rest of their lives.
I realize that is not the case in all situations, but it does happen.
And the result of situations like this, and the lack of clear standards for what to do in these situations, is often years and years of continued bitterness and litigation.
When spouses and former spouses spend years returning to court, children suffer, finances suffer and every family member's economic future is a little less secure.
One of the surest ways to prevent excessive litigation is by adopting standards and guidelines.
There is a lot less to fight about when everyone is clear on the rights and expectations.
By adopting clear and consistent standards, while allowing flexibility in situations which require it, the results will be more consistent and there will be less litigation and less harm to families.
This month, a new bill will be introduced seeking to reform Florida's alimony laws.
Florida Alimony Reform, a grassroots organization founded in 2010, is at the forefront of change with its proposed legislation.
They are supported by the Second Wives Club, and its founder, Weston resident, Debbie Leff Israel.
The bill, filed by state Representative Ritch Workman, revises the factors a judge must consider when awarding alimony, including how much and for how long.
The most notable change sought by reform advocates is ending permanent alimony.
If the bill becomes law, it will reform alimony in the following key areas: Removal of permanent alimony from present statutes, except in cases where the party receiving alimony can prove that he/she is not self supporting.
The need for alimony payer to have the right to retire at Federal Retirement age or standard retirement age for high risk professions.
A defined amount based on a formula that is fair, and averages incomes for both spouses.
Second Wives' or husbands' income shall not be used to calculate an upward modification of alimony.
Attaching a decreasing term life insurance policy instead of a term, or whole life policy to the alimony payment so that insurance is affordable and ends when the alimony payment ends.
Make the law retroactive so that those saddled with alimony payments can get payments modified to comply with the new law.
The Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, many family law attorneys and members of the public who oppose the proposed changes to the law claim that reform is not needed.
The main reasons for opposing alimony reform are the arguments that permanent alimony is not permanent, meaning that it can be modified or terminated based on remarriage, cohabitation or a change in circumstances, and that removing permanent alimony will place many former spouses in financial peril.
Alimony reform advocates disagree with the "permanent is not always permanent" position and present numerous situations where a request to modify or terminate alimony has been denied despite a supportive relationship or a change in financial circumstances.
Advocates also point out that no one is seeking to eliminate alimony, but to make the laws more fair and to allow ex-spouses to financially disentangle themselves after a certain point in time.
I believe that there are situations where one party cannot support themselves, usually due to illness or disability, and, in some long term marriages, a person's age and lack of work experience could prevent them from becoming self-supporting.
In these cases, alimony may be the only way to prevent that person from plunging into poverty.
I am also concerned about retroactive modification in cases where there was an agreement which involved a compromise of receiving less assets in exchange for alimony.
That being said, I also believe reform is necessary.
The current laws allow for broad discretion in how much alimony can be awarded and for how long.
Modifying or terminating alimony is based almost solely on the financial ability of the paying former spouse, who cannot voluntarily reduce his or her income, while the receiving spouse, who can be educated, have prior work history and is employable, can choose not to work or to work only in a limited capacity for the rest of their lives.
I realize that is not the case in all situations, but it does happen.
And the result of situations like this, and the lack of clear standards for what to do in these situations, is often years and years of continued bitterness and litigation.
When spouses and former spouses spend years returning to court, children suffer, finances suffer and every family member's economic future is a little less secure.
One of the surest ways to prevent excessive litigation is by adopting standards and guidelines.
There is a lot less to fight about when everyone is clear on the rights and expectations.
By adopting clear and consistent standards, while allowing flexibility in situations which require it, the results will be more consistent and there will be less litigation and less harm to families.
Source...