Alimony and Stay-at-Home Parents

Permanent alimony in Florida is the stuff of legend, but it is neither a given nor terribly elusive.  It all depends on the specific circumstances of the family. Typically, the recipient of permanent alimony is someone who was married for at least 17 years and did not earn an income for most of the marriage. Besides chronic illnesses, being a stay-at-home parent is the most common reason for not working during a long marriage. These are some recent cases where stay-at-home parents have requested alimony; in some cases, the courts awarded it.

• Brezault v. Brezault: Both parents worked during the marriage, but the husband reduced his working hours after the child was born. He continued to work fewer hours in order to spend more time with the child. Therefore, the court ruled that the wife, whose income was higher, should pay him durational alimony.
• Dickson v. Dickson: The wife was out of the workforce for 20 years, beginning in her early 20s, raising the couple’s three children. The trial court awarded her rehabilitative alimony, as she was studying to become a surgical technician at the time of the divorce. On appeal, she successfully argued that she had lost a lot of her earning potential during two decades as a stay-at-home parent. The appeals court granted her request for permanent alimony.
• Hua v. Tsung: The wife requested permanent alimony, as she had been a stay-at-home parent during most of the couple’s 17 years of marriage. The court instead awarded her rehabilitative alimony, so that she could become certified as a nurse; it imputed an annual income of more than $50,000 per year to her after receiving her certification and determined that she did not need permanent alimony.

Contact Alan Burton About Your Need for Spousal Support

Florida courts are in agreement that stay-at-home parents are entitled to alimony, but they decide what type of alimony on a case-by-case basis. Contact Alan R. Burton in Boca Raton, Florida with questions about divorce and spousal support.

Courts also sometimes award permanent alimony after a long marriage when the supported spouse is young enough to have a career ahead of her. Kimberly Dickson successfully argued before an appeals court that, because of the 20 years she had spent as a stay-at-home parent, her earning potential was considerably less than if she and her former husband had not agreed that she should stay home for all those years. In other words, courts take into account a spouse’s contributions to a marriage that are not in the form of currency and other material assets. Kruse v. Levesque is another case where an appeal court awarded permanent alimony to a woman in her 40s; in this case, the marriage had lasted only 11 years, and the court ruled that permanent alimony was appropriate because of the wife’s disability.

Details of the Kruse v. Levesque Case

Jennifer Kruse and Martin Levesque were married from 2002 until 2012; they were in their 40s at the time of the divorce. Martin had a lucrative job in the computer industry throughout their marriage. Jennifer worked as a psychologist until 2007, when health problems made it necessary for her to quit working; she received disability payments after that.

The court followed the standard procedure in determining alimony. First, it determined that Jennifer was in need of spousal support and that Martin was able to pay it. Next, it determined what kind of alimony to award. It ruled out bridge the gap alimony because that is only for temporary, divorce-related expenses, and rehabilitative alimony because that is for preparing to reenter the workforce, which Jennifer’s disability prevented her from doing. Instead, the trial court awarded durational alimony, a series of monthly payments with a pre-set end date.  Durational alimony is the standard in medium-term marriages. Jennifer appealed the ruling, arguing that permanent alimony was the most appropriate type because her need was ongoing.  She had no other way of bringing in an income besides her disability payments, which did not cover all her expenses. The appeals court ruled in her favor.

Contact Alan Burton About Alimony Cases

With six types of alimony recognized in Florida, there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement. Contact Alan R. Burton in Boca Raton, Florida for another opinion on your alimony arrangement.

Regardless of the fact that there are far fewer true deadbeat dads in real life than there are in the popular imagination, child support obligations are not the only reason that Florida’s family courts make decisions based on someone’s imputed income. The Koscher v. Koscher case involves the divorce of a wealthy couple who did not have minor children at the time of the divorce. Instead, the judge relied on imputed income purely to determine alimony payments.

What is Imputed Income?

In short, imputed income is estimated potential income. When a supporting spouse (or a parent paying child support) is earning an income, the courts base the amount of support payments on the income amount. If the court determines that the person is voluntarily unemployed or intentionally earning less money than he or she could, the court bases the support payments on what the person should be earning based on his or her previous work experience and previous income amounts.

The Koscher v. Koscher Case

At the time of their divorce, Daniel and Marcie Koscher had been married for 30 years and had two adult children. Marcie had been unable to work throughout their marriage because of chronic health problems, and both spouses agreed that she should receive permanent alimony. Where they disagreed was on the amount of alimony. At the time of the divorce, Daniel was receiving severance pay from a job that had laid him off. Instead of looking for another job, he tried to start his own company, but it did not become profitable. Three years after the divorce, the court ordered him to increase his support payments, and it based the amount on an imputed income of $850,000 per year. (During the last years of the marriage before being laid off, Daniel’s income had ranged from $450,000 to more than a million.) The court decided that Daniel was voluntarily unemployed and that three years was plenty of time for him to find a new job.

Contact Alan Burton About Imputed Income Cases

Decisions involving what someone “should” earn are always fairly subjective and not set in stone. Contact Alan R. Burton in Boca Raton, Florida, if you think the court has imputed too much income to you or too little income to your former spouse.

Local media have recently highlighted the complexities of high asset divorce by reporting on the divorce of Nancy Hua and Dennis Tsung, an affluent South Florida couple. As of August 2017, the details of how to divide the couple’s assets have yet to be completely worked out. The rulings issued so far in the divorce and in Nancy Hua’s appeal reveal many interesting things about the way Florida courts view property division between divorced spouses.

Wealth Plus Time Does Not Always Equal Permanent Alimony

Nancy and Dennis were married for almost 18 years. In the original divorce case, Nancy requested permanent alimony of $20,000 per month. For most of the marriage she had been a stay-at-home parent with no income. The spousal support award she received was for rehabilitative alimony; Dennis was to pay her $2,500 per month for two years. He was also to pay $12,000 toward her educational expenses; the plan was for her to attend nursing school and then begin working. The court estimated that she would be able to earn an annual income of $50,000 working full time as a nurse. The reason for the court’s decision to award rehabilitative alimony is that Nancy Hua had plenty of potential for gainful employment. She was in her early forties and in good health, and her children were old enough not to require full time childcare.

What Counts as Marital Property?

Another point of contention in the divorce was some valuable shares that Dennis Tsung owned in a Chinese company. He argued, though, that the shares should not be considered marital property because it was his father who had bought the shares in Dennis’ name. Nancy, Dennis, and the elder Mr. Tsung agreed that Dennis was legally registered as the owner of the shares. The reason for registering the shares in Dennis Tsung’s name was so that, upon his father’s death, he would not have to pay a 40% tax to inherit them, as Chinese law would require. A footnote in the appeal that, in an attempt to avoid paying 40% of the value of the shares in taxes, Dennis left himself open to the possibility of being ordered to pay 50% of their value in spousal support to his ex-wife. The court ruled that because the shares legally belong to Dennis, they are, in fact, marital property.

High Asset Divorce with Alan Burton Law

Alan R. Burton practices family law in Palm Beach County, Florida. Contact Alan Burton to find out how he can help with property division in your high asset divorce.