Alimony – Findings of Fact Regarding Short Term Marriage in Florida

In awarding alimony, a trial court must make findings of fact for each factor, even if alimony is denied. “Here, the court simply denied the Former Wife’s request for alimony because the Former Husband was going to make an equalizing payment and this was a short-term marriage. However, the trial court did not address all of the appropriate factors required by the 2009 statute.” Witt v. Witt.

Comprehensive Alimony Representation for Short-Term Marriages

Florida law mandates that trial courts make detailed findings of fact on all relevant factors when awarding or denying alimony. Failure to address these factors can affect the fairness of the outcome, particularly in cases involving significant assets or equalizing payments.

Important Considerations in Alimony for Short-Term Marriages

• Statutory Factors Compliance: Courts must consider various factors such as the duration of the marriage, financial resources, and contributions of each spouse, even if alimony is ultimately denied.
• Equalizing Payments: In some cases, lump-sum or equalizing payments may replace ongoing alimony, but courts must still evaluate all relevant circumstances.
• Short-Term Marriage Challenges: Short-term marriages often involve fewer financial entanglements, yet careful legal evaluation is necessary to protect your rights.
• High-Net-Worth Implications: Even in short marriages, when substantial assets exist, alimony determinations can become complex and require expert legal guidance.
• Trial Court Findings: Detailed findings of fact are important to support or contest alimony awards and are mandatory if an appeal is necessary.
• Customized Legal Strategies: Our attorneys craft tailored approaches to advocate for or defend against alimony claims based on the specific facts of your case.
• Protecting Your Financial Interests: No matter if pursuing alimony or defending against a claim, we make sure that your financial future is safeguarded through strategic representation.

Factors That Influence Alimony Decisions in Short-Term Marriages

When courts consider alimony in short-term marriages, they evaluate multiple factors beyond just the marriage duration. These include the financial needs and earning capacities of both spouses, the standard of living established during the marriage, and any contributions made by each party to the marriage or to the other’s career.

Alimony Enforcement in Florida

A final judgment awarding alimony and child support creates a presumption that the payor has the ability to pay. The payor bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the payor cannot pay. “The final judgment of support created a presumption that the father had the ability to pay child support and to purge himself of any subsequent contempt. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“If the obligor subsequently fails to pay alimony or support and a contempt hearing is held, the original order of the court creates a presumption that the obligor has the present ability to pay the alimony or support and to purge himself or herself from the contempt.”). The father did not appear at the contempt hearing and, therefore, did not show that he lacked the ability to purge himself of the contempt within a reasonable time. See id. (“At the contempt hearing, the obligor shall have the burden of proof to show that he or she lacks the ability to purge himself or herself from the contempt.”). Hernandez v. Hernandez

Dedicated Legal Support for Alimony Enforcement

Lane Law Firm understands the challenges that arise when an obligor fails to meet alimony or child support obligations. Enforcing these judgments is important to protecting your financial rights and making sure that court-ordered support is received consistently.

Our skilled attorneys provide vigorous representation for clients facing enforcement issues, particularly in cases involving complex financial situations and high-net-worth individuals.

Alimony – Standard of Review of Trial Court’s Rulings in Florida

Trial Court’s Decision on whether to award permanent alimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. “‘A trial court’s decision on whether to award permanent periodic alimony is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.’ Hornyak v. Hornyak, 48 So. 3d 858, 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see Mondello v. Torres, 47 So. 3d 389, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (noting that “the nature and amount of an award of alimony is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). Beasley v. Beasley

Expert Guidance on Alimony Decisions and Appeals

Lane Law Firm recognizes that decisions regarding permanent alimony are highly discretionary and depend on numerous factors, including the duration of the marriage, financial resources, and each spouse’s needs.

Because appellate courts review such decisions under an abuse of discretion standard, challenging or defending an alimony award requires nuanced legal expertise and a thorough understanding of Florida family law.

Unmarried Fathers and Unmarried Mothers and Contempt of Court in Florida

This paternity case involved an unmarried mother and an unmarried father in Hillsborough County, Florida. This litigation started when the child was 16 months old. The parties were initially able to settle matters involving their personal property. However, disputes about the child continued for many years. After an August 2008 hearing, the trial court entered a temporary order awarding majority time-sharing to the father. The remaining issues were referred to a general magistrate. The general magistrate did not conduct a hearing on these issues for two years. One of the parents objected, and the reviewing court did not issue an order for three more years. The mother objected to this ruling and the court did not rule on the mother’s objections for another two years.

The father was then found in contempt of court for violating the temporary timesharing order. In the contempt order, the father lost his majority timesharing with the child. The court granted a custody modification and awarded the mother equal timesharing. The father was also admonished not to exercise sole parental responsibility and was ordered not to engage in conduct that hindered effective co-parenting.

The Court of Appeal ruled that trial courts in Florida cannot modify custody orders as a sanction for contempt of court. Motions for contempt are filed to enforce the provisions contained in parenting plans contained in court orders. Trial courts are prohibited from modifying custody provisions as a sanction for a party’s contempt of court. The reason for this is that the penalty of changing custody does not compel compliance. Instead, it punishes the child for the parent’s misconduct. The Florida Court of Appeal ruled that the better course of action is to grant additional visitation or make-up visitation. The Court held that a trial court may not sanction a parent by reducing his or her timesharing. This sanction is not permitted as a matter of law in the State of Florida. Accordingly, the trial court’s order was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court.