Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What about the woman who stayed home and raised the children while the husband progressed in his career and was enhanced in his career because of his wife's sacrifice ? Doesn't she deserve alimony ?

A. This question contains many assumptions. First you are assuming that even though his career might be successful, that the husband did not sacrifice anything or contribute anything comparable to what the wife does in raising the children. In many cases the husband in choosing the role of provider has had to work long overtime hours, perhaps work two jobs, Give up other dreams he may have had, and still have to help his wife in the raising of the children when he gets home. Do not assume that the stresses of a job or career are not equivalent to the stresses of caring for a child. If you are going to attach financial equivalency to the roles and contributions each made to the marriage, it would have to be 50/50 because of the partnership nature of it.
Most importantly though, in the situation you describe the roles that this couple played in their marriage was a private personal decision. It is not acceptable to expect the state to enter the private realm of this couple's relationship and force it's version of monetary equity for the private decisions made by this couple in their marriage. It is a constitutional privacy issue.

Q. If there are minor children, won't they suffer if the custodial parent does not get alimony?

A. Alimony is not for the children. That is what child support is for. After divorce, as before, the parents are (should be) equally responsible for the well being of the children that were born out of the failed marriage. Many times the custodial parent is forced to pay alimony to the non-custodial parent and the children suffer because of it.

Q. What about an elderly couple who gets divorced and the wife has been a housewife all her life? How will she provide for herself?

A. If by elderly you also mean retired, this couple would in all probability have accumulated certain assets during their marriage. Especially if the husband had had a good career or work history. Under the law of equitable distribution, she would be entitled to at least half of everything they own. This would include any retirement funds that the husband had received from his employer. 

Since they are both retired, they are both eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits. The wife would receive benefits based on her husband's work record. Once again you are assuming that because of the personal choices that this couple made in their marriage that somehow they are not equal in the eyes of the law. 

If the wife stayed home and cared for the children it can also be assumed that now they are grown children and should assume some responsibility for the well being of their parents.  

Q. My girlfriend and I are engaged to be married. I realize that with divorce rates 
averaging 50% or higher, I would like to protect myself from alimony should my marriage fail. Is a pre-nuptial agreement needed ?

A. Sorry, once you enter into a marriage contract with the state (note I did not say spouse), that contract and the state laws that govern it takes precedence over any other. Florida courts have ruled in the past that alimony is entitlement granted by state statute, therefore it is a right that cannot be contracted away with a pre-nuptial agreement. Since you can't get legally married and keep the state out of your life, my recommendation (if you fear the potential ramifications) would be - stay single. This does not represent legal advice, please research it carefully for yourself or speak to an attorney. Just remember, a state marriage license gives the state judicial system and their family law scheme total control over your financial assets and even your children should your marriage fail.

Q. I have been paying permanent / lifetime alimony to my ex-wife for the last 10 years. During this time she has not done anything to improve herself or attempt to become self-sufficient. We have no minor children. Recently, the company I work for began downsizing and the emotional and psychological stress on my life is unbearable, as my workload has doubled. I have another job opportunity where the working conditions would be better for my mental and physical health but it pays much less. Can I get my alimony reduced because my ability to pay has changed if I take this job?

A. As you have discovered, alimony recipients have absolutely no obligations to you or the state. They don't have to better themselves or do anything for you or the state. They can make any changes to their personal life they choose except remarry or die without any consequences to their alimony. Their liberty is intact. 
You however, cannot. If you attempt to exercise the liberty you no longer posses, history shows that the court will accuse you of being "willfully under employed" and "impute" income to you. They do not care about your mental or emotional well being. They only care that you maintain your "ability to pay". It's really all about the money. You have it and the ability to get it and they want it. It's as simple as that. Your "rights" are not important. Only your ability to pay.

Q. I am the second wife to a man who has been ordered to pay lifetime, permanent, alimony to his first wife. Due to circumstances relating to his job, he has been unable to pay and the periodic amount has accumulated to a large sum. He has already been jailed once on contempt charges for not paying. We do not have the money to pay and now to keep my husband out of jail, we have to sell our home that he and our children have lived in for the last five years. We don’t know what to do. Can you help? 

A. You are the victim of a terrorist tactic used by many family court judges around the state of Florida who are either incompetent, corrupt,  ignoring the law, or all of the above.  There are proper procedures, by law, that judges must follow when attempting to extract monies from alimony victims. You cannot be jailed for contempt for alimony arrearages if the court cannot determine where the money is coming from. Your husband must have a hearing to determine this prior to contempt proceedings. Selling your home and leaving you, your husband, and children, with no place to live,  borrowing from family and friends, or otherwise forcing you further into debt, are not acceptable remedies. I would not do it if I were you. You have civil rights even though this judge and the Florida legislature will not recognize them. Since I am not an attorney and cannot give you legal advice, my personal advice to you is find a civil rights attorney to take your case to federal court and sue the pants off the state for violating your civil rights. Stay clear of family law attorneys, they are an integral part of this corrupt system. I repeat this is not legal advice only possibly useful information.

Q.  I am recently divorced and feel I have been railroaded into a settlement agreement with my ex. During a hearing for temporary alimony, the judge ordered us to mediation with the warning that if I didn’t settle promptly the attorney’s fees would add up quickly. Once in mediation, my own attorney and the mediator got me alone and warned that if I didn’t sign the agreement, containing exorbitant alimony, I would be bankrupted fighting it and the judge would still make me pay permanent alimony because of my length of marriage (26 years). The first thing they had me sign was one saying I hadn’t been coerced. But I feel I was. What can I do now? 

A. They were correct in telling you that you would be bankrupted fighting. The system is designed to allow them to do that. The goal of most divorce attorneys is to get as many billable hours out of you as they can. If you had fought in open court, they would have billed you as much as possible as long as you and your spouse could be kept fighting. Many times the fight continues far beyond depletion of your available assets. Mediation allows them to shuffle you thru the system as quickly as possible while extracting as many billable hours as they can. This allows them to overbook cases and create billable hours that don’t require them to do much. Of course you and your spouse can argue endlessly at mediation too while the clock for 3 or more attorneys ticks away. This keeps the judge’s docket clear and the attorneys can still deplete your assets through billable hours. Get it?  Unfortunately, if you try and go back to the system with the argument that you were coerced, you will be right back where you started – bankruptcy. Except now the judge will probably look at you and say “hey you agreed to this and now you don’t want to do it?” “Sorry pal”.  I’m afraid you been had by the latest new angle the corrupt system spawns – mediation. Only now your locked into a civil contract that would cost you more to fight than your original divorce. Welcome to the state plantation.

Q: 

 I think you are being unfair in your attitude. If a women chooses to give up her career and stay home to raise the children and help her husband through college, she deserves to be compensated when they divorce, doesn't she?

 

 

A:

 

I think you're not understanding the problem, which is one of risk.  At the moment the family provider (to put this in gender neutral (terms) is assuming all the risk if a marriage ends.  Non providers are making decisions that assumes the provider will carry all the risk, thus non providers make decisions (such as staying at home with the kids, helping a spouse get an education, etc) without fear of loss.  Make the risk equal between the two spouses, ie they are responsible for themselves in the event of a divorce, and decisions as to who stays home, who works, etc. will change. 

If women want to be equal to men they will have to assume the same risks as men, which means if a woman chooses to give up a career for husband, she assumes the risk if that man suddenly disappears from her life.  A lot of women would rethink the stay at home senario if there was risk attached to it.  If I had understood that I was assuming all of the risk in getting married and would be punished for it, I would not have gotten married in the first place.

 

 

 

 Home | Ballot Initiative Petition | Case Law | Federal Filings 
Self-Help | Forum | Articles | Press Releases | Links | 
FAQ's | Chairman's Message | About Us | Contact us