Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
A change in the alimony statutes in Florida in 2023 eliminated permanent alimony. For that reason, cases which were appealed before the change but were still pending after, had permanent alimony reversed in the appeal. This was an issue in the case Edman v. Edman, 4D2024-0077 (Fla. 4th DCA March 26, 2025).
In this divorce case, the husband and wife appeared at the final trial, pro se. The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2023. The trial was held in November 2023, and despite the change in alimony laws on July 1, 2023, the trial court awarded permanent alimony to the wife, finding she was 57 years old, had not been employed since 2007 ad was a housewife during the marriage. The wife was awarded $2,000 per month of permanent alimony. In addition the trial court found the husband had a pension but it did not have enough information to divide the account. The court found it “would equally divide this pension” but since the court did not have sufficient information, it would retain “jurisdiction to enter a QDRO or other documentation dividing this pension as and when payable.” The husband appealed, arguing it was error to award permanent alimony against the law, and that awarding the wife 50% of his pension amounted to double-dipping if he was also required to pay alimony.
Of issue in the appeal was that no transcript of the final hearing was provided. When the husband attempted to obtain a statement of the evidence through the trial court, a new judge presiding in the division declined to do so since that judge did not preside over the final hearing. When the husband contacted the office of the judge who had presided over the trial, he learned the judge passed away. Thus the trial court was unable to/declined to approve the husband’s statement of the evidence. The husband argued his should be accepted since it could not be confirmed through no fault of his own, and the wife did not object to his statement of the evidence.
First with regard to the statement of evidence, the appellate court held “Husband argues on appeal that we should consider his statement of the evidence because the parties agreed to the facts within it. However, Husband’s submitted statement of the evidence was not approved by the trial court—a requirement of the rule. [internal citations omitted]. Therefore, we must reject the statement of the evidence for failure to comply with [rule 9.200(b)(4)]. Because the acceptance of a statement of the evidence is a matter of discretion by the trial court, we find no error in this case”
The court went on to hold it was error for the trial court to award permanent alimony when the statutes did not permit this for cases pending after July 1, 2023. The court further held “The face of the final judgment also shows the trial court erred in failing to make the findings required by section 61.08 to grant an alimony award. [. . .] The absence of these findings combined with the lack of a final hearing transcript requires us to reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing and prepare an order with the necessary factual findings after consideration of these factors.” Finally, addressing the pension the appellate court held “Husband also argues that the trial court erred in awarding Wife 50% of Husband’s retirement pension with the permanent alimony award because the trial court could not ‘double-dip and award both.’ Husband asserts that alimony should terminate when he retires if Wife is to receive 50% of Husband’s retirement pension. We note that the trial court lacked information regarding the pension’s term and retained jurisdiction to divide the pension at a later time. Because we are remanding this case to the trial court for reconsideration of the alimony award in an evidentiary hearing, we direct the trial court to address the pension, take additional competent evidence to determine its appropriate distribution, and make the necessary findings.”