Bill eliminating permanent alimony heads to Senate floor

Joe Gruters has his eye on kratom.

The controversial bill to end lifelong alimony advanced to the Senate floor Tuesday evening after about an hour of discussion in the Senate Rules Committee. 

This time around, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to pass similar alimony reform measures in recent years, Sarasota Republican Sen. Joe Gruters says his bill (SB 1796) is an improvement on past efforts. The measure would repeal court-ordered permanent alimony, leaving bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative, and durational alimony on for all divorces going forward.

“What we’re doing is we’re going in, and creating the process to make it so we can limit the litigation that exists,” Gruters said when presenting his bill. “This is all about — on the front end for new divorces — limiting the litigation, empowering both parents or both family members who are now going to be separating and trying to let them leave with as much dignity and respect as possible. Divorce is devastating. Let’s make it less devastating by passing this bill.”

The bill can be applied retroactively on modifiable agreements, a measure that drove opposition from public commenters and lawmakers. For alimony cases designated as non-modifiable in the marital settlement agreement, the court cannot apply the bill retroactively, Gruters said.

Opponents argue cutting permanent alimony would leave individuals caring for children in compromising positions. Additionally, they say the legislation only seeks to benefit the primary breadwinner, putting the other individual at an unfair disadvantage.

“It still is retroactive,” said Barbara DeVane for the Florida National Organization for Women. “I plead with you on behalf of older women who have given up their careers to raise the children while their husband was advancing in his career. They get no social security for raising children and taking care of the home, and now all of a sudden, they’re very scared about what’s going to happen when their ex-husbands rush back to court to take away the little bit that they have.”

As in years past, the bill drew opposition from several current alimony recipients who feared the changes could alter their modifiable alimony. Opponents also criticized the bill’s equal timesharing presumption for custody battles. 

The legislation would also remove the court’s ability to consider adultery of either spouse in determining the amount of an alimony award.

An amendment tacked on by Gruters and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday evening would provide parameters to the court to make determinations regarding the amount and duration of alimony.

The amendment would also allow alimony payers to ramp down payments if seeking to retire, while protecting those deemed vulnerable recipients.

The amendment would require the obligor to file a notice of retirement and intent to terminate alimony with the court and recipient. If the payor continues working and earns income despite reaching retirement age, alimony payments would continue until he or she actually retires and reduces active income by 50% of pre-retirement levels, according to the amendment.

Gruters contends that the amendment “allows permanent alimony payers to retire when reaching retirement age.”

“The whole goal for me was to create safety valves that exist,” Gruters said about his amendment. “Payees are going to be protected all the way through.”

However, the amendment did draw criticism. Family law lawyer Shannon Novey, representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said it walked back what was progress on this year’s legislation. She said the retirement provisions speak to old agreements, “modifying those agreements retroactively.”

Currently, long-term alimony can be modified at a judge’s discretion. A 1992 Florida Supreme Court ruling found that retirement counts as a change in circumstances that can modify alimony. 

Gruters’ bill died in the Senate Rules Committee last year. The House voted 74-38 last year to pass the bill.

This year’s House version (HB 1395), carried by Fort Myers Republican Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka. Both drafts of the legislation would take effect in July.