That dreaded word in a divorce: Alimony. Alimony is determined by the court after looking at one party’s actual need versus one party’s ability to pay. After equitable distribution is determined, the court reviews what money is left over, if anything, and considers the parties’ circumstances to come up with a fair award. Some questions to answer:
Divorces in Florida typically split the parties’ assets and liabilities down the middle as much as possible. Determining what is a marital asset or liability or a non-marital asset or liability can be key to whether an asset or liability will be considered in the calculations. Before filing for divorce, you should consider the following items when thinking about equitable distribution:
In Florida, divorces with children involved primarily focus on the parenting plan first. The parenting plan determines numerous factors in raising your children and will be the document most referred to after the divorce is finalized. It is important that the plan is tailored to you and your children and accounts for the best interest of the children. Before filing for divorce, you should consider whether you would like to request one of the following:
When parties come to family court in Florida for paternity, dissolution of marriage, or child support proceedings, income of the parties can become very important in calculations and is examined closely. There may be certain situations where one parent is working overtime to make additional money, whether it be to pay support or to supplement income because of a lack of support being received. Can working overtime be a 
problem in your family court case?
Florida Statute § 61.30(2)(a) indicates that gross income shall include, among other things, bonuses, commissions, allowances, overtime, tips, and other similar payments. Child support will be calculated from net income, so it is important to get all allowable deductions as accurate as possible. For purposes of child support, the court must impute income to a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent unless the lack of employment is the result of the parent’s physical incapacity or other circumstances beyond the parent’s control. The court has to state the exact amount of gross income it is imputing to a parent. See Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4thDCA 1999). Regular overtime or second-job income is included unless the court specifically finds that the opportunity to earn overtime will not be available as an income source in the future. See Butler v. Brewster, 629 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Therefore, it can be possible that overtime and second-job income can be used to calculate child support and the court won’t make a finding that the income source will not be available as an income source in the future, making child support higher or lower depending on the circumstances. Contact an experienced Jacksonville Family Law Attorney with the Law Office of David M. Goldman, PLLC for a consultation.
In Florida, the enhancement of value of a nonmarital asset could be declared by a divorce court to be a marital asset. Most of the time you see this when one spouse’s nonmarital asset is alleged by the other spouse to be a marital asset. If it cannot be declared a marital asset any other way, the court may look at enhancement of value of the nonmarital asset and award the other spouse an interest of that enhancement of value. The Mitchell case illustrates this concept.
In Mitchell v. Mitchell, 841 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2ndDCA 2003), the husband owned a Tampa Carrollwood home prior to the marriage and kept it titled in his name so it was nonmarital property. The trial court found that the home had been enhanced due to marital funds and efforts. Typically, the enhancement in value of a nonmarital asset resulting from either party’s nonpassive efforts or the expenditure of marital funds is a marital asset. The appellate court found that such enhancement in the Mitchell case was negligible. They performed primarily cosmetic or maintenance-related improvements, such as wallpapering. The most important factor in the increase in the value of the property was passive market appreciation, about 5 to 6 % annually. This produced a market value of $185,000. The appellate court found that where the increase in market value is attributable to inflation or “fortuitous market forces,” the expenditure of marital funds on the nonmarital asset does not transform the appreciated asset into marital property. However, an increase in equity due to the use of marital funds to pay down a mortgage balance is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution. The appellate court found that the wife’s interest in the home was limited to her one-half share of the amount by which the mortgage was reduced with marital payments.
The husband in Mitchell also had 41 acres of unimproved land in North Carolina that was solely titled in his name alone throughout the marriage. The circuit court characterized the entire appreciation in the value of the nonmarital North Carolina property as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution despite the fact that the appreciation was entirely attributable to passive inflation. As in the case of the Carrollwood home, this was error according to the appellate court. It was undisputed that the property was unimproved. It had no sewer, septic, electric, or water connections. The record showed that the parties used marital funds to pay mortgage payments, taxes, and a road assessment fee. The increase in the husband’s equity due to the use of marital funds to pay down the mortgage was a marital asset to be divided between the parties. Otherwise, the North Carolina property was found to be husband’s nonmarital asset.
In some marriages, a spouse’s parents may supplement the family income with monetary gifts, which may be an issue later on if the husband and wife divorce. Can one spouse argue that the other spouse will have higher income due to the monetary gifts from family members thereby raising alimony and child support payments? According to Florida law, it depends.
In Oluwek v. Oluwek, 2 So.3d 1038 (Fla. 2ndDCA 2009), Jonathan Oluwek, the husband, appealed an amended final judgment of dissolution of his marriage to Linda Oluwek, the wife. The trial court imputed $1500 per month contributed regularly by the husband’s parents to husband for alimony and child support. The husband argued the trial court erroneously imputed the $1500 per month as income to the husband. The record indicated his parents made regular monthly payments of $1500 over the last five years of marriage.
The Oluwek court held that as a general rule, the trial court may not consider financial assistance from family or friends in determining a party’s ability to pay alimony or child support. However, there is an exception that allows the court to impute income based on gifts “if the gifts are continuing and ongoing, not sporadic, and where the evidence shows that the gifts will continue in the future.” In Vorcheimer v. Vorcheimer, 780 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4thDCA 2001), the appellate court held that the trial court erred by imputing $1500 to the husband as income where there was no evidence that the payments would continue. The $1500 payments had been made on a monthly basis for twelve years, but the husband’s father testified at trial that he had stopped making the monthly payments and would not make them in the future. The court distinguished that case from Ordini v. Ordini, 701 So.2d 663 (Fla. 4thDCA 1997), in which regular monthly payments from the husband’s parents continued through trial and the husband’s mother testified that she would continue to make them in the future.
In Simmonds v. Perkins, No. SC17-1963 (Fla. 2018), the Florida Supreme Court decided to take up the question of whether a biological father is entitled to rebut the common law presumption that the mother’s husband is the legal father of a child born to an intact marriage, where the mother or her husband object to allowing such rebuttal. The Court held that the biological father may rebut the presumption of legitimacy when he has “manifested a substantial and continuing concern” for the welfare of the child. The presumption of legitimacy may be overcome by a “clear and compelling reason based primarily on the child’s best interests.”
This case involved the child’s mother, Treneka Simmonds, and biological father, Connor Perkins, and their daughter. When Perkins and Simmonds were together, Perkins was never told Simmonds was married to a man named Shaquan Ferguson. When Perkins did find out Simmonds was married, she told him she was married for “immigration purposes” and was going to get a divorce. Perkins was there when the child was born, taken the child to the doctor, enrolled the child in daycare, and even had sole physical custody for awhile. The child called him “daddy.” Perkins’ mother is also known as her grandmother.
Perkins decided to file a petition to determine paternity, timesharing, and child support. Simmonds moved to dismiss the action based on it being barred by the common law presumption of legitimacy because Simmonds was married to Ferguson. Perkins then added Ferguson as an additional party, amended his petition to seek disestablishment of Ferguson’s paternity, and alleged it would be in the child’s best interests for him to be recognized as her legal father. Ferguson also moved to dismiss under common law. The trial court dismissed Perkins’ petition because of previous Fourth District precedent stating that the putative father cannot seek paternity when the child was born in an intact marriage and the married woman and her husband object.
In 2016, Angelina Jolie filed for divorce from Brad Pitt after he got into an altercation with his son Maddox on a plane that resulted in an FBI investigation. You may have heard about the custody battle with their six children that has ensued. Recently, a judge apparently ordered “new restrictions” regarding Angelina’s participation in how Brad interacts with the children.
The Judge wrote, “[The children] not having a relationship with their father is harmful to them. It is critical that each of them have a healthy and strong relationship with their father and mother.” The Judge also state, “If the minor children remain closed down to their father and depending on the circumstances surrounding this condition, it may result in a reduction of the time they spend with [Jolie] and may result in the Court ordering primary physical custody to [Pitt].” The Judge created a visitation schedule for Brad to see his children over the summer with the children continuing to receive therapy.
It seems the Judge is trying to prevent parental alienation. Parental alienation is the psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent and/or other family members. Check out 9 warning signs that parental alienation might be present here.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his third wife, Judith, are currently involved in a heated divorce. A day after filing for divorce on April 4, 2018, the parties filed for each other to produce a statement of net worth to determine assets. The Giulianis have been married for 15 years and they do not have a prenuptial agreement.
In 2007, when Rudy Giuliani submitted his financial disclosure to the Federal Election Commission while running for president, he was worth an estimated $30 million. The couple own properties in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida. It is estimated that there is currently an estimated $60 million in assets at stake. When he married Judith, Rudy was pretty much insolvent and the money he has now was earned while he was married to Judith. New York is a separate property state, but her participation in his success could be a factor for the assets to be split 50/50.
In Florida, mandatory disclosure applies so the Giulianis would not need to file for a statement of net worth. Mandatory Disclosure is the procedure where financial information is automatically disclosed by the parties upon the filing of a divorce. The parties must exchange financial information in the form of a financial affidavit and additional documents such as tax returns, bank statements, credit card statements, deeds, vehicle titles, insurance policies, etc. Mandatory disclosure must be completed within 45 days after service on the respondent.
For any father who is involved in a Florida paternity action, it can be overwhelming to learn that you may have to pay not only child support, but retroactive child support and birth expenses for the child. Is there any way to limit the cost of what has to be paid to the mother for the time period prior to the paternity ordered being entered? The answer is: it’s possible.
Florida Statute 742.031 provides that in a paternity action, the court shall order the father to pay moneys sufficient to pay reasonable attorney’s fees, hospital or medical expenses, cost of confinement, and any other expenses incident to the birth of the child and to pay all costs of the proceeding, if appropriate. The statute provides that bills for pregnancy, child birth, and scientific testing are admissible as evidence without requiring third-party foundation testimony and shall constitute prima facie evidence of amounts incurred for such services or for testing on behalf of the child.
Where it can be tricky is what is “appropriate” as defined in the statute? In Dustan v. Weatherspoon, 505 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3rdDCA 1987), there was an appeal of a paternity action’s child support order. The mother alleged that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to require the child’s father to pay any portion of the expenses incidental to the birth of the minor child. The appellate court agreed with the mother. The court stated: “These rather minimal child support requirements seem to us the least that a father should be expected to do for his child, providing, of course, the father can afford it.”
