Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Alimony
What is considered a supportive relationship in Florida for purposes of modifying or terminating alimony? In a recent appellate opinion, the court reviewed the trial court’s denial of a request to modify or terminate alimony in light of the petitioner’s allegations that the former wife was living in a jointly-owned home with her boyfriend of 14 years. The case is Proveaux v. Proveaux, 1D21-3410 (Fla. 1st DCA March 29, 2023).
The parties were divorced in 1995 at which time the former husband was ordered to pay permanent alimony to the former wife. In 2020 the former husband petitioned to modify alimony, alleging the former wife was in a supportive relationship. The evidence presented established the former wife had been with her boyfriend for at least 14 years, and had been living together since 2009. The couple previously lived in the boyfriend’s home, but because the former wife had trouble ascending and descending the stairs in that home, she and her boyfriend decided to purchase another home together. Both parties contributed to the down payment on the home and contribute to the mortgage monthly.
The parties made upgrades to the new home. Former wife receives rental income from the marital residence which was awarded to her in the divorce. While the former wife testified that she receives mail at a P.O. Box, her driver’s license listed the home shared with her boyfriend, and her boyfriend testified that she receives mail at their residence. There was also evidence provided which established the former wife and her boyfriend share household expenses, take turns paying for meals at restaurants, have separate bank accounts and do not keep track of who pays for what. After considering this evidence, the trial court found (1) there was no supportive relationship and (2) even if a supportive relationship existed, the former wife still showed a need for alimony. The former husband appealed.
The appellate court disagreed with the trial court and reversed, holding “The relationship between Former Wife and [her boyfriend] meets many of the factors set out in section 61.14(1)(b)2. It is not necessary for each of the factors to be met to find a supportive relationship. The evidence shows that Former Wife and [her boyfriend] had been in a committed, serious relationship for at least fourteen years, and had been living together since before 2009. Cohabitation for more than a decade is a significant period. They have jointly purchased property and pooled their assets. The joint purchase of their shared home was for the benefit of Former Wife who had knee problems.”
The court continued “After making its factual findings, the trial court concluded, as a matter of law, that they were insufficient to show that the parties had an express or implied agreement regarding property sharing as contemplated by section 61.14(1)(b)2.i.–j. This was error. Former Wife and [her boyfriend] purchased their property as joint tenants with a right of survivorship, meaning that the house will pass to the other owner in the event of either’s death. The estimated value of the house is $290,000. This is an agreement regarding property sharing which plainly satisfies section 61.14(1)(b)2.i.–j. Former Wife and [her boyfriend] are a committed couple and have shared the same home for years. Former Wife and [her boyfriend] also share household duties, which are a valuable service. [internal citation omitted]. They also share household and grocery expenses. After making its factual findings, the trial court erred in applying section 61.14 to those facts. The trial court’s factual findings demonstrate, as a matter of law, that [the boyfriend] and Former Wife were in a supportive relationship.”
The appellate court then turned to the former wife’s issue of continued need for alimony. The court held “The trial court here expressly stated that the greater weight of the evidence demonstrated Former Wife still had a need for alimony, regardless of whether a supportive relationship existed. However, once a court has made a finding of a supportive relationship, “the burden of proof of the continued need for alimony shift[s] to the former [spouse].” Gregory v. Gregory, 128 So. 3d 926, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Former Wife did not adequately prove that she had a continued need for alimony. Her financial affidavit was outdated, and she testified that her monthly medical costs had decreased from $750 to $177. The court also did not properly consider Former Wife’s access to significant additional retirement funds, totaling at least $119,000, or [her boyfriend’s] ‘valuable, noneconomic services to the former wife.’ Id. at 927. On remand, the trial court must reconsider Former Wife’s continued need for alimony in light of these factors.”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney if you need help understanding whether alimony will be terminated or modified in your case.