Release from Alimony / Co-habitation

[Guy67]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

I was divorced in October of 2007 in Florida. Since that time I have been paying alimony to my ex. In May of 2008 her boyfriend moved in with her and my daughter, prior to my daughter graduating from high school in June 2008 / I was also paying child support prior to her 18th birthday which was in May. I am not sure of all the monentary arrangements of my ex and her boyfriend but they share the bedroom and he lives with them full time. He moved all of his stuff and belonging in. He cooks and buys groceries and food along with other household areas. I believe she pays the bills but would assume he helps out; according to my daughter. He is a nice enough guy but I do not see how it continues to be my responsiblility to pay for him and her to live together and I cover the costs. Do I have recourse to dissolve the alimony payments due to this though they are not married but co-habitating; among other things. What would my steps be and does Florida law look favorably on my side in this circumstance or am I barking up the proverbial fat chance.

GuyWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[Ohiogal]

What does your court order state about alimony?

[Guy67]

The settlement follows typical florida divorce language noting that the alimony payments shall terminate upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the wife. Does not really address recent court proceedings addressing the co-habitation issue. I suppose the question is will the co-habitation issue fulifll the test of the settlement outside of remarriage issue.

[Ohiogal]

Originally Posted by Guy67

The settlement follows typical florida divorce language noting that the alimony payments shall terminate upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the wife. Does not really address recent court proceedings addressing the co-habitation issue. I suppose the question is will the co-habitation issue fulifll the test of the settlement outside of remarriage issue.

Then it terminates upon the death of either party or remarriage of your wife. HENCE, it does not terminate upon cohabitation.

[Guy67]

I understand your logic; however my question is based on the information contained in the revised florida statute on same and copied below. It seems to open the door for rescue to a degree; and if so how to proceed and the likelihood of success. Also, can one prepare the paperwork and file themself and how in general terms.

REVISED STATUTE
The Florida Legislature, with the approval signature of Governor Jeb Bush, has now enacted an amendment to Florida Statute Section 61.14, which governs awards of alimony in divorce proceedings, as well as modifications or terminations thereof. The amendment substantially changes the law pertaining to termination of alimony.

Awards of Alimony

In divorce cases where alimony is considered, the amount is generally assessed by balancing the dependent spouse's needs with the supporting spouse's ability to pay, in light of the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. The court may order alimony as a lump sum, or through periodic payments, although many courts now favor "rehabilitative" or "bridge-the-gap" alimony, which encourage eventual self-sufficiency, over permanent, periodic alimony.

Modification/Termination of Alimony

Until now, the law provided that awards of alimony should terminate when either party dies or when the recipient remarries. The issue of alimony could be revisited only when the need or ability to pay changed substantially. This claim of a "substantial change in circumstances" is typically based on the incomes and financial circumstances of the parties and/or any alternate sources of support to the recipient. Only upon a substantial change in the need of the recipient or the ability to pay of the payor was a modification or termination granted.

Section 61.14 previously made no provision as to automatic termination upon "cohabitation." There was no recourse to terminate alimony for those parties bound by a Marital Settlement Agreement providing that alimony was "non-modifiable."

Senate Bill 152

Senate Bill 152 (House Bill 1181) was introduced in early 2005, and sponsored in the Florida Senate by Gary Siplin, an Orlando Democrat. Its proposal stemmed from a recent Florida case in which Beth Rice, an alimony recipient/ former wife, and her live-in boyfriend, Stanley Blacker, invited 50 friends and relatives to Las Vegas in June. Programs and t-shirts from the event read "Las Vegas Wedding Weekend," and a video of the event showed the couple standing beneath a chuppah, a canopy traditionally used in Jewish weddings. They exchanged vows and rings, and essentially staged an unofficial wedding, complete with ceremony, reception, friends, family, champagne toasts, cake, etc. Upon the ex-husband's petition for termination of alimony, Judge Robert Foster ruled that it was not a legal marriage because there was no marriage license, and that the alimony obligation therefore stood. Needless to say, the payor/ex-husband, obligated to pay $5,000 per month, was outraged that the law did not provide him recourse to terminate his alimony obligation under these obvious circumstances.

Effect of Changes to 61.14

The amended Fla. Stat. s. 61.14 authorizes the court to terminate an award of alimony where the court has made specific written findings, as proven by the payor through a preponderance of the evidence, that a "supportive relationship" exists between the recipient and a person with whom the recipient resides. Provisions of the amendment identify a variety of criteria to be used in determining whether a supportive relationship exists. These provisions provide an alternate method to a court to terminate alimony, without requiring the court to make a threshold determination of a change in financial circumstances, as was previously required.

In determining whether a supportive relationship exists, the court shall give consideration to the following factors:

* Whether the obligee and the other person hold themselves out as a married couple, engaging in conduct such as using the same last name and a common mailing address, referring to each other as "my husband" or "my wife," or otherwise conducting themselves in a manner that evidences a permanent supportive relationship;

* The length of time that the obligee has resided in a permanent place of abode with another person who is not related by blood or affinity;

* The extent to which the obligee and other person have combined their assets or income or have otherwise demonstrated financial interdependence;

* The extent to which either the obligee or the other person supports the other, either in whole or in part;

* The extent to which the obligee or the other person has performed valuable services for the other's company or employer;

* Whether the obligee and other person have worked together to create or enhance anything of value;

* Whether the obligee and other person have made a joint purchase of real or personal property;

* Whether there is evidence to show that the obligee and the other person have an express or implied agreement regarding property sharing and support;



* Whether the obligee and the other person have supported the children of one another, regardless of any legal obligation. Note that this amendment provides that proof of a conjugal relationship is not required. In so doing, the revised statute extends the court's authority to terminate alimony to those situations in which the obligee is in a platonic, live-in relationship with another person, where there is evidence of a supportive relationship between the obligee and the other person, regardless of gender.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by Guy67

I understand your logic; however my question is based on the information contained in the revised florida statute on same and copied below. It seems to open the door for rescue to a degree; and if so how to proceed and the likelihood of success. Also, can one prepare the paperwork and file themself and how in general terms.

REVISED STATUTE
The Florida Legislature, with the approval signature of Governor Jeb Bush, has now enacted an amendment to Florida Statute Section 61.14, which governs awards of alimony in divorce proceedings, as well as modifications or terminations thereof. The amendment substantially changes the law pertaining to termination of alimony.

Awards of Alimony

In divorce cases where alimony is considered, the amount is generally assessed by balancing the dependent spouse's needs with the supporting spouse's ability to pay, in light of the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. The court may order alimony as a lump sum, or through periodic payments, although many courts now favor "rehabilitative" or "bridge-the-gap" alimony, which encourage eventual self-sufficiency, over permanent, periodic alimony.

Modification/Termination of Alimony

Until now, the law provided that awards of alimony should terminate when either party dies or when the recipient remarries. The issue of alimony could be revisited only when the need or ability to pay changed substantially. This claim of a "substantial change in circumstances" is typically based on the incomes and financial circumstances of the parties and/or any alternate sources of support to the recipient. Only upon a substantial change in the need of the recipient or the ability to pay of the payor was a modification or termination granted.

Section 61.14 previously made no provision as to automatic termination upon "cohabitation." There was no recourse to terminate alimony for those parties bound by a Marital Settlement Agreement providing that alimony was "non-modifiable."

Senate Bill 152

Senate Bill 152 (House Bill 1181) was introduced in early 2005, and sponsored in the Florida Senate by Gary Siplin, an Orlando Democrat. Its proposal stemmed from a recent Florida case in which Beth Rice, an alimony recipient/ former wife, and her live-in boyfriend, Stanley Blacker, invited 50 friends and relatives to Las Vegas in June. Programs and t-shirts from the event read "Las Vegas Wedding Weekend," and a video of the event showed the couple standing beneath a chuppah, a canopy traditionally used in Jewish weddings. They exchanged vows and rings, and essentially staged an unofficial wedding, complete with ceremony, reception, friends, family, champagne toasts, cake, etc. Upon the ex-husband's petition for termination of alimony, Judge Robert Foster ruled that it was not a legal marriage because there was no marriage license, and that the alimony obligation therefore stood. Needless to say, the payor/ex-husband, obligated to pay $5,000 per month, was outraged that the law did not provide him recourse to terminate his alimony obligation under these obvious circumstances.

Effect of Changes to 61.14

The amended Fla. Stat. s. 61.14 authorizes the court to terminate an award of alimony where the court has made specific written findings, as proven by the payor through a preponderance of the evidence, that a "supportive relationship" exists between the recipient and a person with whom the recipient resides. Provisions of the amendment identify a variety of criteria to be used in determining whether a supportive relationship exists. These provisions provide an alternate method to a court to terminate alimony, without requiring the court to make a threshold determination of a change in financial circumstances, as was previously required.

In determining whether a supportive relationship exists, the court shall give consideration to the following factors:

* Whether the obligee and the other person hold themselves out as a married couple, engaging in conduct such as using the same last name and a common mailing address, referring to each other as "my husband" or "my wife," or otherwise conducting themselves in a manner that evidences a permanent supportive relationship;

* The length of time that the obligee has resided in a permanent place of abode with another person who is not related by blood or affinity;

* The extent to which the obligee and other person have combined their assets or income or have otherwise demonstrated financial interdependence;

* The extent to which either the obligee or the other person supports the other, either in whole or in part;

* The extent to which the obligee or the other person has performed valuable services for the other's company or employer;

* Whether the obligee and other person have worked together to create or enhance anything of value;

* Whether the obligee and other person have made a joint purchase of real or personal property;

* Whether there is evidence to show that the obligee and the other person have an express or implied agreement regarding property sharing and support;



* Whether the obligee and the other person have supported the children of one another, regardless of any legal obligation. Note that this amendment provides that proof of a conjugal relationship is not required. In so doing, the revised statute extends the court's authority to terminate alimony to those situations in which the obligee is in a platonic, live-in relationship with another person, where there is evidence of a supportive relationship between the obligee and the other person, regardless of gender.

What does your attorney say about this?

My guess is that your ex has already consulted with her attorney and has been advised that your money will keep right on going into her pocket.

Had you forced a court order rather than agreeing to pay her any alimony in the first place, you "might" be in a better position.