Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce'
Can anticipated future expenses be considered in determining a Florida alimony obligation? Can alimony be used to compensate a party for equitable distribution? These were two interesting issues discussed in the recent case Grable v. Grable, 1D2024-3224 (Fla. 1st DCA February 11, 2026).
In this divorce case, the trial court awarded alimony to the former wife based in part on her testimony as to anticipated expenses for repairs to her home and vehicle. She was awarded alimony that took these expenses into account. The trial court found an equalizing payment was due to the former husband in the amount of over $103,000, and to compensate him, it ordered that his alimony obligation terminate 34 months early; thus instead of paying the 216 months of alimony the court would have otherwise ordered him to pay, he would pay 182 months of alimony to save him the amount of money he was owed in equitable distribution. The former husband appealed.
As to the equitable distribution, the appellate court noted “The statute also allows a trial court to effectuate the equitable distribution by ‘order[ing] a monetary payment in a lump sum or in installments paid over a fixed period of time.’ § 61.075(10)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023). But any such monetary payment ‘shall vest when the judgment is awarded.’ § 61.075(2), Fla. Stat. (2023). Moreover, the ‘award shall not terminate upon remarriage or death of either party, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, but shall be treated as a debt owed from the obligor or the obligor’s estate to the obligee or the obligee’s estate, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.’ Id.”
The court reversed this portion of the final judgment, holding “Here, the trial court’s equitable distribution in the form of an offset of alimony payments does not comply with these statutory mandates. First, the $103,157.97 offset is only fully realized by the Husband if alimony continues, unchanged, for 18 years. Thus, the distribution is dependent on the continuation of alimony; it does not take priority over alimony, as required. § 61.075(9), Fla. Stat. (2023). Second, by being dependent on alimony, the distribution is at risk of being reduced or eliminated. For example, the Husband would not receive his full equitable distribution if alimony is terminated by either party’s death or by her remarriage prior to the completion of the 18-year duration. See § 61.08(8)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023) (stating that durational alimony terminates upon the death of either party or upon the remarriage of the obligee). Alimony could also be reduced based on changed circumstances. Id. This would then reduce the Husband’s equitable distribution. As a result of these possibilities, the equitable distribution award of $103,157.97 as an offset against future alimony payments does not ‘vest’ immediately upon the judgment, as required. § 61.075(2), Fla. Stat. (2023). It was therefore an abuse of discretion for the trial court to fashion the equitable distribution to the Husband as non-payments of his alimony obligation, which are subject to modification or termination and therefore might never be realized.”
Turning to the future expenses claimed by the former wife for alimony, the appellate court held “‘As a general rule, trial courts may not consider future or anticipated events in setting current alimony and child support amounts due to the lack of an evidentiary basis or the uncertainty surrounding such future events.’ Nelson v. Nelson, 651 So. 2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); [internal citation omitted]. But future needs and events that are ‘well-documented in the record” may be considered. Nelson, 651 So. 2d at 1255. Here, the Wife did not simply anticipate a need for future repairs. She substantiated each current need with testimony and documentation. Because it was reasonable for the trial court to accept the Wife’s overall estimate of her monthly expenses toward home repairs based on the above evidence, we conclude that the trial court’s award of $383.00 per month was not an abuse of discretion.”
This article is not legal advice; for advice specific to your case, schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney.