Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Alimony
Under the revised Florida alimony statutes, permanent alimony has been abolished. For long-term marriages (meaning marriages 20 years in length or longer), alimony can be awarded for up to 75 percent of the length of the marriage. The amount of alimony could be 35 percent of the difference in net incomes between the parties or the need of the spouse asking for alimony, whichever amount was less. The award of alimony in a 50-year marriage after the passage of the revised alimony statute was an issue in the case Loconto v. Loconto, 4D2023-3079 (Fla. 4th DCA May 28, 2025).
The husband was 78 and retired by the time of the final hearing, and the wife was 76, totally blind, and retired. The wife sought alimony, and the evidence showed the husband had a surplus of about $900 per month after his monthly expenses. Before the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed, the parties sold the marital home and each received $128,500 from the sale. By the time of the final hearing, the husband still had $118,00 remaining while the wife had $38,000 remaining. This appeared to be due in part to each party’s choice of living arrangements pending the divorce - the husband kept his living expenses low while the wife stayed in hotels, quickly depleting her funds. The trial court cited the wife’s level of spending as “irresponsible”. The wife was granted $500 per month in alimony for a period of 37 years and her request for attorney’s fees and costs was denied. She appealed.
The appellate court reversed as to the alimony award, holding “Here, the trial court found that the former wife’s reasonable needs amounted to $2,477 per month. The former wife received $1,228 in monthly Social Security income. The former husband had monthly income of $3,847. He admitted that he had a surplus of $949 per month.2 The court correctly calculated that “35 percent of the difference between the parties’ net incomes” was $909. If the court had awarded the thirty-five percent or a monthly award of $909, former wife would receive $2,137 ($1,228 + $909) monthly and former husband would still have $2,915 ($3824 - $909), with a $40 monthly surplus. Thus, the former husband still would have more income than the former wife. The former wife, however, would still have a monthly deficit of $340. The court’s award of only $500 per month would leave the former wife with a monthly deficit of $749 ($2,477- (1,228 + $500)). This is not a case where the former wife may be able to supplement her income. The court found that the former wife had been totally blind since age twenty and had been totally dependent upon the former husband throughout the marriage. Only awarding the former wife $500 per month in durational alimony shortchanges the wife, when section 61.08 authorizes the payment of $909, which would still not cover her reasonable expenses. She will still have to continue reducing her shrinking assets, even as the former husband will have a monthly surplus of $49. The court’s justification that a greater monthly award than $500 would leave the former husband with little or no surplus ignores the fact that the wife will have a considerable deficit.” The appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion.
The court affirmed on attorney’s fees, however, holding “The trial court denied any award of attorney’s fees to the former wife, finding that she had sufficient assets to pay her attorneys from the home sale proceeds, of which she received half. The court found that the former wife had spent a majority of those proceeds during the proceedings on housing, which the court deemed too expensive and irresponsible. Thus, the former wife’s depletion of her assets was not a reason for the former husband to be required to invade his assets to pay her fees. We agree that the trial court had broad discretion to deny fees to the former wife. See Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 701 (Fla. 1997). Similarly, the retroactive alimony award, which would have to come from the former husband’s share of the home sale proceeds, is not an abuse of discretion. See Vitro v. Vitro, 122 So. 3d 382, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law may apply to the facts of your case.