Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Same-Sex Family Law
If a couple is together for many years prior to the time they marry, can the time they were together before they married be considered in determining how long alimony should be paid? Section 61.08 of the Florida Statutes provides the framework for deciding how long and how much alimony should be awarded. This was an issue in the case Taylor v. Davis, 1D20-561 (Fla. 1st DCA July 15, 2021).
The parties were together for 24 years before they actually married. By the time a petition for divorce was filed, they were married for a little over three years. Before the parties’ marriage, one spouse reduced her workload because she experienced health issues. She claimed the other spouse encouraged her to step back from work so they could spend more time together, and she testified the other spouse voluntarily supported the household financially. The spouse who reduced her workload took on more of the housework and cared for the other spouse’s mother.
The trial court considered these factors and found the spouse who reduced her workload, although somewhat impaired health-wise, she was able to do some work and imputed her to $35,000 annually. Ultimately, the court found that the other spouse should pay $3,000.00 in permanent alimony because no other form of alimony was fair or reasonable under the circumstances of the parties when considering how long they cohabitated prior to marriage and the health issues of the spouse who reduced her workload. The spouse ordered to pay alimony appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding “The trial court’s finding was insufficient in both form and substance. A mere recitation of statutory factors followed by an unelaborated reference to unique circumstances and a long relationship does not constitute written findings of exceptional circumstances. A conclusory, unexplained statement that only permanent alimony is fair and reasonable is similarly inadequate. Not only did the trial court fail to explain its findings, but the evidence does not support such findings. There were no exceptional circumstances in this case. Davis is not physically or mentally disabled to the point that she cannot support herself; indeed, the trial court imputed income to her despite finding that her work ability is limited by physical impairments. Moreover, Davis testified that her health issues predate the marriage and there is no evidence that they worsened during the marriage, so they cannot be considered “something that happened during the marriage” to render her incapable of 5 supporting herself. [internal citation omitted]. Her age and time out of the workforce are not exceptional; it is not abnormal for couples to divorce near retirement age or for one divorcing spouse to have been out of the workforce. It is also unexceptional for one spouse to do more of the housework or care for relatives. Finally, the length of the parties’ premarital relationship cannot properly be considered under section 61.08(2)(j). This catch-all provision cannot permit consideration of factors that are impermissible. Florida law is clear that legal rights and duties arise from marriage, not cohabitation or romance. Because there were no exceptional circumstances supporting permanent alimony for a short-term marriage, it was an abuse of discretion to award it to Davis.”
The court also rejected the argument that the parties had an oral contract for support where the argument was not made to the trial court, and there was explicit testimony from the spouse asking for alimony “that she and Taylor did not have a support agreement, stating that their only agreement was to start a foundation.” The court continued “The only evidence of a contract is her testimony that Taylor had encouraged her to stop working because they had ‘plenty of money’ and Taylor’s testimony that she had told Davis that they had enough money to live on. Taken as true, this testimony does not establish that there was an offer, acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of essential terms, as required for an enforceable contract.”
When considering that same-sex couples could not legally marry not too long ago, it is important that couples consider entering a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement to address inequities that could arise as a result of this. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to your case.