Legal Updates

2023 Alimony Reform

Applies to All Cases Pending On or Filed After July 1, 2023

  • Permanent Alimony Eliminated

  • New Law Cannot be used as Basis for Modifying Existing Alimony Award

  • Limits on how long Alimony Paid

  • Durational Alimony Generally Unavailable for Marriage of Less than Three Years

  • “Sort of” Formula for Calculating Alimony: No more than 35% of Difference in Incomes

  • Procedure for Termination of Alimony upon Retirement

  • Adultery is again a Factor to consider in Awarding Alimony

  • Beefed up Language on Reduction or Termination for “Cohabitation” 

50/50 Timesharing New Normal in Florida

            Both parents are entitled to 50 percent of timesharing (“custody”) with their minor children in divorce and paternity cases under a bill passed by the Florida Legislature.

            The new law creates a presumption that equal timesharing is in the best interests of a minor child, which “must be the primary consideration”.  The presumption can be overcome if a parent proves that it is more likely than not that equal timesharing is not in a minor child’s best interests.

            In other words, if a parent wants more than 50 percent timesharing, that parent needs to allege—and prove—that it is harmful to the child to spend half time with the other parent.  Previously, there was no presumption for or against any specific timesharing schedule.

            The bill become laws on July 1, 2023 if signed by the Governor.  It applies to all cases pending, or filed after, that date.

Cannot Impute Income Greater than Previously Earned

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled it was error to impute income that is more than a party has earned in the past when calculating alimony and child support.

The appellate court in Leyte-Vidal v Leyte-Vidal reversed a final judgment which imputed to the Husband $332,500.00 a year, even though his average income was $250,000.00. The imputed income was based in part upon a one-time bonus he received of $79,000.00.

The Court held:

It is error for the trial court to impute income to a spouse in an amount higher than the spouse has ever historically earned, absent special circumstances. A bonus must be “regular and continuous” before it can be included in a party’s income for support purposes.

The appellate court also rejected the argument that the Husband could earn additional income due to revisions to his pay structure in a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Potential increased income after the CBA was “merely an extrapolation based on speculation”.