A Permanent Alimony Horror Story and One Man's Legal Battle

Updated: October 2009

RE: A Permanent Alimony Horror Story; 17th Judicial Circuit Court
Case # 00-12164 40/90 and 4DCA Appeals Court Case # 4D09-3749 (the statements made here are supported by legal pleadings and documents available in the Courthouse as public records, by documents held by me and available to the reader upon request, and by witnesses’ testimony)


Dear reader:

This is the horrific story of a divorced man and dedicated father that at the age of 34 years was Ordered by a Court in Broward County, Florida to pay $2000 per month in permanent/lifetime alimony to a healthy 33-year-old woman. Alimony is adult support. I was also ordered to pay $1149 per month in child support to the same woman. Child support ends when the children reach 18 years of age. Why is my story horrific? Because permanent alimony means that I have to support my former wife, an adult, for the rest of my life (even though I’ve declared bankruptcy and have lost my job) or go to jail. This is not a fiction novel. This is real life and all the facts mentioned below are “public” records. Anyone can go to the Broward County Courthouse to request to view the file with case number stated above. But in order to save a trip to any disbeliever, I have included a copy of the Final Judgments from 2000 and 2009; those are court orders that verify most of the details.

Here are details of my story in chronological order:

September 1986: We got married in Jersey city, NJ and moved to Florida.

1986 to 1999: We had three children, now of ages 20, 18, and 13 and lived in Miami-Dade County Florida. The former wife worked on and off whenever she felt like it. She even worked with me at a computer business that I owned.

October 1999: I purchased a marital home in Broward County, FL. although I knew that my marriage was in trouble. This was a mistake on my part but I did it because I wanted my kids to live in a safer neighborhood and in a neighborhood with better schools. I write that “I purchased” because the former wife had screwed up her credit during the marital years so I had to buy the home using my name and credit only. However, under Florida law, it is still considered a marital asset.

March 2000: After 13 years of marriage and with 3 kids, I got separated from the former wife due to irreconcilable differences. It was the hardest decision of my life because I did not want to leave my kids. But the relationship with the former wife had taken a toll on me to the point that I had had several anxiety attacks in the previous months. I left the marital home and moved to Miami-Dade County in order to live with my parents because I could not afford a place of my own. The former wife was not working at that time and our smallest child was 3 years old. At the time, I did not have a problem with the former wife being a homemaker until the smallest child started preschool. However, it is impossible to maintain two households with only one person working so I was willing to financially sacrifice myself for a couple of years. Foolishly, I did not know I would be forced to sacrifice myself financially and emotionally for at least the next 10 years.

July 19, 2000: The former wife filed for divorce. She was angry and bitter that I left her and she is still angry and bitter to this day. She hired an unscrupulous “family” attorney who is still representing her to this day and who only cares about his attorney fees with no regard for “family” or for children. She hired an expensive unethical attorney against which I have filed a Florida Bar complaint (more on that later). I, on the other hand, hired a simple and cheap divorce attorney. At that time, I had no idea that Permanent Alimony existed and I thought the divorce process would be simple and that we would just split everything in half. Looking back, I now know how naïve I was about the Florida divorce laws, about the greed and unethical behavior of some attorneys, about the greed and spite that can drive a former spouse to abandon her children in preference of a lover. But it was not long before I was awakened from my naïve state of mind.

August 28, 2000: Soon after the filing for divorce, the former wife requested a hearing for temporary relief, under the advice of her unscrupulous attorney. This was unnecessary because I was paying for all her household expenses voluntarily. But it was not enough for the former wife; she and her attorney wanted more! The General Magistrate (a judge that does most of the Court for the actual Judge assigned to the case), ordered the following to be paid by me until the divorce was final:
a) The husband shall pay all of wife’s household bills plus give her $200 per week
b) The husband shall pay for the children’s school uniforms
c) The husband will pay wife’s car insurance and at the wife’s option (not husband’s option) he must repair existing wife’s car or buy the wife a new car. (Which option to do you think the ex-wife chose? At the hearing The former wife falsely claimed that the car I left her had bad brakes and was not safe enough to drive the kids. So I was ordered to buy the former wife a new car using my credit because the former wife had bad credit. The former wife had bad credit because she did not know how to control her spending during the marriage and did not care. This was one of the many problems in our marriage.)

August 2000: Just a few months after divorce, the Former Wife started dating a man she had met months before we were separated. She started bringing her new boyfriend to the house and before long her boyfriend would stay over at the marital house 3-4 nights a week. They and my kids would go out together all the time. They were cohabitating and they financially supported each other. In other words, my support payments to the former wife were not just being used for the household expenses and the kids; my payments were now also supporting another male adult. Psychologists tell separated and divorced parents that it is a bad thing to introduce a new lover to your children too soon. They usually recommend waiting at least 12 to 18 months. But the former wife was more interested in her financial well-being and in the psychological well-being of our children. And this is still true to this day.

December 2000: By the end of year, the Former Wife’s boyfriend had moved into the marital house and would stay all seven days a week. Years later I was informed that this man was married at that time and that the Former Wife knew about it all along. What ever happened to trying to instill family values into the kids?

July 2000 to June 2001: I struggled financially. The Former Wife and I were ordered by the court to go to a third-party mediator who is also an attorney. The Court forces couples getting a divorce to do this because it is written in the statutes. What people do not know is that attorneys see this so-called “mediation” as a threat to their income. Think about it; if an attorney settles at mediation, the attorney will lose income of $250-350 per hour for the 300 to 400 hours that they easily can charge for a typical divorce, that’s a loss of at least $30,000. So there was no incentive for the former wife or her attorney to try to settle. The former wife and her attorney demanded that the former wife receive $3000/mo. in alimony for life (disguised as “periodic permanent alimony” in the FL statutes) plus child support. This was their firm stand and they would not budge an inch. How can two people come to a settlement if they are not willing to give anything up? They can’t and we didn’t. I believed that day of mediation and still believe today that no adult individual should have to support another adult individual involuntarily for the rest of his/her life. So the three attorneys came out of that meeting with about $500 more in each of their pockets.


June 2001: At the age of 34, we got divorced by the Court in Broward County, FL. The Former wife would not agree to settle, so there was a trial and a Final Judgment was Ordered by the Court. The Former wife was 33 years old and had plenty of work experience but was not working at the time of divorce. The Former Wife did not have a high-school diploma or any certifications. We had been separated for more than a year. I was ordered by the Court to pay a healthy and work experienced ex-wife $2000 per month in permanent alimony, $100 per month in rehabilitative alimony for 3 years (how ironic), and an additional $1149 of child support each month for our 3 children. The Former Wife was awarded the marital house and all of its contents; she was awarded all the marital assets. The Former Wife received half of my 401K. Each party was ordered to keep the debt in their name but my debt was greater. You hear people talk about “equitable distribution” in a divorce and how each person gets half of what they owned. Not True. There was no “equitable distribution” of assets or debts in my case.

My net income was $4730 per month and I was left with only 16.5% of this income
($ 781) for me to support myself and my kids when they were with me every other weekend. (see money details below).

Here are the financial details of the Final Judgment:
Husband’s Net Monthly Income: $ 4,730
(after taxes and medical expenses)
Permanent Alimony to Former Wife for life: $ 2,000
Rehabilitative Alimony to Former Wife for 3 yrs: $ 100
Child support to Former Wife for 3 kids: $ 1149
Marital Debt ordered to be paid by former husband $ 700
Available Net Income left to husband: $ 781
Percentage of ex-husband’s Net going toward alimony: 44.4%
Percentage of ex-husband’s Net going toward alimony & child support: 68.7%
Percent of ex-husband’s Net going to ex-wife and marital debt: 83.5%


2001-2004: Former Wife worked at cash jobs like hair styling salon and worked from home so that she could hide her income from the Former Husband.

2004, July: The Former Wife had now received the 3 years of rehabilitative alimony; she attended technical school to attain 2 certifications: Cosmetologist (06/17/2004) and Nail Specialist (02/12/2002); and she had attained her GED diploma. The Former Wife was now “rehabilitated”, educated, working, but at the same time cohabitating and receiving financial support from her boyfriend. I received legal advice not to attempt a modification of Permanent Alimony because there was no law regarding “cohabitation”. Also in July 2004, after 4 years of living with my parents, I was finally able to buy a small one-bedroom condo.

2005: Senate Bill 152 was passed into law. It added a section 61.14(b)(1) to the FL statutes which supposedly discourages cohabitation by allowing the Court to modify or terminate permanent alimony if a former spouse is cohabitating. The new law is very weak in its language and makes it very difficult for anyone to prove that cohabitation exists. I received legal advice not to attempt a Modification of Permanent Alimony at that time because of the poor wording of the new law and that it was too new and had not been tested in Court. So I was advised to wait for future “case law” to be decided by the Appeals Courts based on this new law. Therefore, I continued to struggle financially and continued paying $2000/mo. alimony and $1149/mo in child support.

2005, December: My eldest son, at the age of 17, gets kicked out of the Former Wife’s home and he comes to live with me permanently. She had an argument with my son because he got home later than he was supposed. My son was out with a friend from Church and was not doing anything bad. When I went t pick up my son, he was standing on the curb in front of the house with a sports bag full of clothes. After that, the Former Wife stopped talking to our son, she shunned him, and until this day she refuses to stay in touch with him and she has never agreed to any therapy to repair the relationship with her son. Since I was now earning more income than in 2001, I did not seek a Modification of Child support or Alimony because I was advised that it would cost me more in legal fees than what I would probably have been able to reduce my child support. I did not see any chance at the time to reduce or terminate alimony due to the history of alimony cases and the fact that the Former Wife had recently entered into a new cohabitation relationship; only 1 Appeals case law (Donoff v Donoff 4D05-3918) regarding cohabitation was decided that year and it was based on a long-term cohabitation. At this time, I was still paying $2000/mo. in permanent alimony and $1149/mo. in child support for 3 children, although 1 of the 3 children was now living with me.

2006, February: Former Wife starts cohabitating with a new boyfriend; the same boyfriend that she lives with and whom she works with at his business.

2007, June: In the summer, after the school year finished, my middle child and daughter, age 16, also moved in with me. The Former Wife’s relationship with our daughter became strained very similarly like it did with my oldest son. The Former Wife stopped talking to our daughter and treated her like an outcast. The Former Wife had now been in the same cohabitation/supportive relationship for almost 1 ½ years. The Former Wife had now been working full time at a business (so I could prove her working capacity) for over a year. By now, 3 more appeals cases ( Buxton v Buxton, Bagley v Bagley, and Zeballos v Zeballos) based on cohabitation law have been decided. I moved to a bigger 3 bedroom house to accommodate my 2 children and rented out my 1 bedroom condo. I hired a private investigator that confirmed that the Former Wife was working full time and still in a financially supportive relationship and cohabitating. So I decide this was a good time to file for a modification and hoped that justice would finally be done. I hired an attorney and filed a Petition for Modification of child support and alimony around June. At this time, I was still paying $2000/mo. in permanent alimony and $1149/mo. in child support for 3 children, although 2 of the 3 children were living with me.
2007, Summer to December: I was living in my one-bedroom 977 SF condo for about six months with my two oldest kids. When my youngest son came over for the weekend, it was four of us living and sleeping in this small area. I had two sofa beds in the living room, a queen size bed in the bedroom, and a queen size airbed. I did a lot of sleeping in the sofa and let my kids get the comfort of the bed and airbed.
2007, December: A friend tells me that she has her house for rent nearby and that she would rent it to me and possibly sell it to me in the future. We had been crammed in my one-bedroom condo for too long. I also believed (incorrectly) that a trial date would come soon and that I would no longer have to pay alimony. And I wanted my kids to live in a real full-size home and not feel like cornered rats in a small condo. So I took a big chance and rented the house from my friend and rented-out my condo. I did this by taking out a loan from my 401K to pay off debt that had accumulated over the years since divorce and I paid the house rent with a credit line.

2008, June: The house that I was living in went into foreclosure proceedings.

2008: In July, after more than a year of litigation and hearings, and after paying thousands of dollars in legal fees, I got a “temporary” reduction of my child support from $1149/mo. to $513/mo. until a final hearing could be held. But I got no relief from having to pay alimony. In addition, I was ordered to pay $4500 toward the Former Wife’s attorney fees which made the reduction in child support not noticed financially. I tried to get an expedited Final Hearing for my Petition to terminate and/or reduce alimony and to permanently reduce my child support but the Former Wife’s attorney kept delaying the case.

2008, August: I was now broke and had to start representing myself PRO SE. While representing myself, I got a Final Hearing date for February 19, 2009. At this time, I was still under Order to keep paying $2000/mo. in permanent alimony. I agreed to pay my former Attorney $673 a month to pay off the balance I owed and hoped that this would all end in February 2009.

2009, February 19: What I thought would be the Final Hearing took place. I hired the same attorney, who I still owed money, to represent me at the Final Hearing because I was inexperienced at trial and was afraid that all my evidence would be thrown out by the Judge. The trial started at 10 AM. The Judge took two hours break at one point. So the one day of hearing was not enough and the Judge scheduled a second day of hearing for April 8, 2009. All my expert witnesses had to be told to go home and I was charged for their time waiting and wasted outside the Court room.

2009, April 8: The second day of the Final Hearing took place. I brought in a reputable forensic accountant as an expert witness to show that the Former Wife and her cohabitant boyfriend were financially supporting each other. I also brought in 3 different private investigators that provided evidence and testified that the Former Wife and her cohabitant boyfriend were living together. The Former Wife admitted to making almost $19,000 in annual income in addition to the $24,000 being received annually in alimony since the divorce. But the Judge ignored most of this evidence and ruled in favor of the Former Wife. The Judge ruled that the Former Wife was to continue to receive permanent alimony of $2000/mo and that Former Wife was now to also receive $1000/mo.in child support for 1 child. The child support was increased from the $513 Ordered earlier in the year. The $1000 for 1 child was almost the same I was paying in 2001 for 3 children because now I was making more money than when I got divorced. The Former Wife was ordered to pay me the difference in child support from July 2007 to March 2009 but the actual amount was to be determined later because the Judge was a procrastinator that could never rule on anything definitively. So after showing all the changes in circumstances since the divorce that took place 8 years ago, I got “screwed” again by another Judge (a female judge this time) that apparently believes that divorced women deserve to be supported by the former husband regardless of the changes taken place since the divorce.

2009, April 13: After almost a two year legal battle, I was exhausted mentally and physically. I went into a huge depression and had to take a medical leave from work.

2009, May 1: Around this time, my job’s sick days ran out, I started collecting short-term disability and my income was drastically reduced. I stopped paying Alimony to Former Wife because I could no longer afford to pay it. But I continued to pay child support of $513/mo. for my 1 child living with the Former Wife at that time.

2009, May 28: My attorney sends me an email stating, “I need your assistance in finalizing the credit portion for child support of the proposed Final judgment”. That same day I replied with the correct credit of child support owed to me by former wife for child support I over paid since my daughter came to live with me.

2009, May 31: My 1-bedroom condo that I had rented out was going to be foreclosed so I had to short-sale it. So I lost my only property.

2009, June 5: At the end of the school year, my smallest child, 13 years of age, came to live permanently with me. The former wife chose her cohabitant boyfriend over her own son and pushed the son out of her home. So by now all 3 kids were being supported and taken care of by me, including college expenses for 2 of the children.

2009, June 30: The final Judgment had not been filed and no communication had received from my attorney. I sent a certified letter to my attorney asking for an update in my case and asking for a final bill.

2009, July 2: My attorney replies via email and states, “Judge has not yet entered the proposed Final Judgment.” My attorney does not send me a final bill after several requests on my part so it becomes obvious that she does not want to state how much I owe her. In the meantime my attorney kept demanding payment even though she was aware of my dire financial situation and that I could barely support myself and my kids. My own attorney had turned against me now.

2009, July 10: I was in deep financial trouble by now and was forced to file for bankruptcy on my own because I had no money to hire a bankruptcy attorney.

2009, July 13: I was involuntarily terminated by my employer, after 12 years of service and dedication, due to not being able to return to work due to my depression.
My insurance company approved me for long-term disability.

2009, July 14: I sent an email to my attorney on this day stating, “Please file a request immediately with the court to withdraw as my attorney and send me a copy”. My attorney already knew about my financial situation. My attorney replied the same day via email and stated, “The entry of a final Judgment generally signifies the end of a proceeding, to the extent that a motion to withdraw is not necessary. I have called and have written the Judge, and she is now considering the proposed Final Judgment. “ My attorney goes on to say that she and the forensic account, her friend, are “disappointed” in me for not paying them and that they will come after me for the money owed to them. My attorney filed the Motion to Withdraw and mailed me a copy.

2009, July 25: Former Wife’s attorney filed a Motion for Contempt and Motion for Attorneys Fees. I received a copy of this from my attorney almost 20 days after it was filed. 20 days is the deadline to file a response. This should have been sent to me immediately after it was filed.

2009, July 29: My attorney sends me an email stating, “According to the Judge’s Judicial Assistant, the Judge's procedure for an agreed upon withdraw (withdrawal with the consent of the client) is for the party to sign the Motion to withdraw, and that document, along with a proposed Order permitting withdrawal, are sent to the Judge for execution. Accordingly, there will be no hearing tomorrow, and I am attaching hereto the Motion to Withdraw, which has been revised to include a signature portion. Please sign the Motion, scan the document and email it back to my office, and mail the original to my office.” I signed the paperwork and sent it via email and USPS mail back to my attorney. I received a copy later by mail showing that this was filed and sent to opposing attorney on July 29th.

2009, August 10: The final Judgment for April’s hearing had still not been Ordered by the court. I filed the following Motions in Court: Motion to disqualify the Judge (because of fear that I will not get a fair hearing in the future, Motion for Temporary Relief and Motion to Abate alimony and Child Support (due to my inability to pay alimony and CS), a new supplemental Petition for Modification and Enforcement (due to all the changes in circumstances since April 2009 mentioned above), and a Response to the Motion for Contempt filed by Former Wife’s attorney on July 25, 2009. Copies of all this were sent via certified mail by me to Former Wife’s attorney along with letter stating that I was now representing myself again.

2009, August 12: The Meeting of creditors was held for my Bankruptcy filing. This is where creditors are allowed to show up and state any reason for the bankruptcy to be delayed. My former attorney is the only creditor that showed up to try to delay by bankruptcy. This goes to show that most family attorneys are more interested in the money than in families. I am grateful that the US Bankruptcy Trustee denied my former attorney’s request due to the overwhelming evidence of my financial circumstances.

2009, August 14: I filed an updated Financial Affidavit showing the Court how I was making much less money now with the disability payments and a copy was sent to opposing attorney along with a letter to try to settle and end the case.

2009, August 19: The Judge signs an Order stating that my attorney is permitted to withdraw and that now I’m representing myself again and that all communications should be sent to my address. The copy of this Order was received by me around August 20th, sent by my attorney. The Order shows the stamp form the Judge’s office dated August 19, 2009 but someone wrote “10” over the “19” . Therefore, it is ambiguous as to whether the Order was issued on August 10 or August 19th. This is not the first time I see this done by the Court. I do not think it is a coincidence that this Order has the date of the 10th, the same day I filed my motions (see above).

2009, August 20: Former Wife’s attorney writes a letter to the Judge along with another Motion for Attorneys Fees and telling the judge that I was making approximately $100,000 a year and that I have the ability to pay. He sent this letter knowing that the $100,000 was nowhere near what I was receiving in disability. He purposely lied to the Judge. But that attorney is accustomed to telling lies in the Court.

2009, August 24: My minor son who moved in with me over the summer started school. He is attending middle school in Broward County and I live in Miami-Dade County. A child psychologist told me, and I agree with this, that a thirteen year old should not be moved away from his friends. Therefore, I decided to keep him in the same school and decided to make the 30 minute drive each way from Mon-Fri. I could not move to Broward County at this time because of my financial situation, plus moving to a new place when your credit has been destroyed is a very difficult thing. Who trusts someone with bad credit these days, regardless of how your credit was ruined?

2009, September 03: I receive a certified document from the Former Wife. The Former Wife never sends me anything by mail. I open it and it’s a Motion to Strike my new supplemental Petition and asking the Court to Order me to be incarcerated for past due Alimony and Child Support. The 4 page document makes reference to “a final judgment that was entered less than a week ago”. That Final Judgment is supposedly the one for the April 08, 2009 Final Hearing. In page 4 of the document, she asks the court to throw me in jail and to make me post a bond of $24,286 and if I refuse to post the bond to throw me in jail for 181 days, to take away my driver’s license and to take away all of my professional licenses. At this point I did not know if the Final Judgment had really been issued because I never got a copy from anyone. Therefore, I went online to the Broward County 17th court website and find out that I must pay $5 to view a list of filings on my case. I paid the $5 and found out that a Final Judgment was filed on August 19, 2009, at least that is what the online system showed. It was already too late for me to drive to the Court to try to get a copy of the Final Judgment. I also realize that it is now 15 days after the Final Judgment was filed and the rules only allow for 10 days after filing to ask for a rehearing or anew trial. In other words, nobody notified me of this Final Judgment in time for me to file a request for a rehearing. Given all the previous history mentioned above, I do not think there is anyone that can not see that there was negligence and/or immoral conduct leading to me not being notified of the Final Judgment. I can still Appeal the Final Judgment ruling (30 days allowed from final judgment filing) to the higher Fourth District Court of Appeals Court and I intend to do that.

2009, September 04: I updated my story above as I sat waiting for my son to get out of school. I was thinking about how the Former Wife is so vindictive that she will go as far as throwing the father of her kids in jail over less than $25,000. I was asking myself what could I have ever done to deserve this? And the only answer I can come up with is that I chose to divorce that woman. Divorce is supposed to “end” a marriage but divorce for me instead created a new “financial alimony marriage.” Neither the Former Wife or her unscrupulous “family” attorney care about “family” or about what happens to my kids if I have to sit in a jail. Instead, they will stop at nothing to see me stripped of everything. I do not care about money. I really don’t. This is not about the money. I care the world about my kids. And my kids need money to go to college. Good parents should make their kids’ lives, not money, their priority. According to the Alimony Law in Florida, it appears that I should neglect my children in favor of supporting the Former Wife. There is something very morally and ethically wrong with this law.

2009, September 08: I drove to the Courthouse to try to get a copy of the Final Judgment and I’m told that my case file has been sent to storage. I was told that I could go to the building of records where the documents are scanned to request a copy of the judgment. I went to that other building and was able to get a copy of the Final Judgment. It turns out that the Final Judgment was dated August 17, 2009 (hand written) and then filed on August 19, 2009. The Judgment stated that I am owed a credit of $8,268 from the former wife for my overpayments of child support. On this same September day I called the Broward Child Support Depository to see if that credit of $8,268 appears in my account. Instead, a woman named Lydia informed me that my account shows that I owe $5,980 in child support and that the child support was never lowered in 2008 from $1149/mo. to $513/mo. Lydia told me that she was going on vacation and to fax another person named Elaine Williams all documentation in order for them to correct my incorrect child support arrears.

2009, September 09: I faxed a letter to Lydia and Elaine Williams of the Broward Child Support Depository with an explanation of the discrepancy of my child support account along with all documentation to support and show that I should have a credit instead of a debt in my account. I have never been against paying child support.

2009, September 10: I called Prudential and filed an application to convert my 401K account (from my former employer) to an IRA so I can take money out of the IRA to pay any arrears in alimony. Prudential did not allow me to take out more money from the 401K (I already had a 30K loan). They told me it would take like 2 days to process. I also left a message for Elaine Williams of the Broward Child Support Depository
expressing how urgently I needed the corrections made to my support account so that I could pay off any arrears in alimony and avoid going to jail.

2009, September 14: I received a call from Elaine Williams of the Broward Child Support Depository explaining that the adjustments had been made and that I had a credit of $1,843.50 in child support overpayment and that I had an alimony arrears of $27,484.06. That meant that I had to come up with $25,640.56 to not go to jail.

2009, September 18: The 401K to IRA rollover was finally completed and I asked to withdraw $32,000 (minus 20% for taxes and penalties). I will have to pay taxes and penalties not only on these $32,000 distributed but also on a $30,000 401K loan that I had received in the past. Prudential mailed me a check for $25,600. This left me with $18,000 in my IRA account. So the government encourages people to save for retirement and then a judge forces you to hand over your retirement to someone else and you still have to pay the IRS penalties for involuntarily withdrawing the money.

2009, September 20: After reviewing the payment history statement sent to me by the Broward Child Support Depository, I found that errors still existed in my account and that I still had not been credited the $8268 for child support overpayment. So I wrote another letter to the BCSD. The BCSD then went on to do an audit of my account and finally corrected my balances.

2009, September 24: I paid $18,284 in alimony, the correct amount in arrears, and another $1,018 in clerk fees to the Broward Support Depository in order to not be thrown in jail for not paying alimony. I was also informed by the Court Reporter that it will cost me over $4500 to attain the transcripts needed for my appeals case. This means that it will cost me over $6000 in court fees and reporter fees, as a pro se litigant, to appeal the final judgment of August 17, 2009.

Present day:

My ex-wife is currently receiving child support for our son that is living with me and that she has not bothered to see in over 2 months. My ex-wife has now been in a cohabitating financially supportive relationship for at least 3 years and 6 months now and has NO INCENTIVE TO RE-MARRY because she will stop receiving the permanent alimony if she remarries. The result of the final judgment issuing alimony payments against me have made me struggle financially and personally for the last 8 plus years. Instead of dedicating 100% of my time and attention to my children, I’ve had to spend a lot of that time figuring out how to pay my bills and how to pay my Former Wife alimony.


The Alimony law here in Florida (Section 61.08) needs to be urgently modified. This law that allows “permanent alimony” to be issued to an ex-spouse is hurting relationships between good devoted parents like myself and their children. This law is destroying families. It is creating financial difficulties for a lot of good parents like myself and therefore causing the parents to spend less time with their children. Permanent alimony takes away the recipient's desire and need to rehabilitate themselves and therefore defeats the purpose of any rehabilitative alimony that is awarded. Permanent Alimony is wrong and has to be stopped. I am certain that the alimony law was not originally written with this intention but this is a fact of the resulting effect it is having.

I’m an excellent parent who has 3 children who all decided to live with me because they preferred to live with the father. I was a respected Board member of the PTSA at my daughter’s high school this past year. Every day I drive from Miami-Dade County to Broward County to take my son to middle school.

The former wife should be paying me for child support. I’m just one example of the many victims of the permanent alimony law in Florida which is truly an injustice. There are many others out there suffering from this Alimony problem and this problem needs to be rectified because it is the morally correct thing to do.

My legal battle continues. However, I do not expect the battle to end anytime soon because the system is not fair. Florida’s governor was recently quoted as saying, “There is something wrong with he system.” He was referring to the 30 plus public officials that he has had to fire during his term in office. Well, there is something also very wrong with Florida’s statute on Alimony and the way that Judges are interpreting that law. I have set hearings in Court for October 27 and 28 to try to permanently stop my child support obligation and to try to stop my alimony obligation until my appeal is heard by the Appeals Court.

My hope is that someone reads this story and decides to do something to stop this injustice. I hope that people will call and write their Representative or Senator and let them know their opinion on Alimony. I hope that a Representative or Senator will decide to write and/or sponsor a Bill to correct the unjust Alimony Law. I hope that news reporters will start investigating and reporting about the injustice associated with permanent alimony. Hope for a better and just world is what keeps us alive and makes us wake up each day. So I will keep hoping.

Thank you for taking the time to read my story.


Sincerely,


H

Press Release for Florida Family Law Reform Rally in Clearwater on Feb 23 2009

Attn: Editor

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release

Contact Information:
Steve Drew, Chairman
Tampa Chapter of The Alliance For Freedom From Alimony, Inc.
10500 Ulmerton Road, Ste. 726-205
Largo, FL 33771
Cell phone: 727-639-6493
Email: tampaalimonyreformgroup@live.com

Group Rallies for Florida Family Law Reform

Clearwater, FL February 23, 2009 – A rally and peaceful demonstration protesting “wasteful family litigation” will be held on Monday, Feb. 23, 2009 by the Tampa Chapter of The Alliance For Freedom From Alimony, Inc. organization in front of the Clearwater Court House located at 315 Court St., Clearwater, FL starting at 8:00 a.m. and lasting until approximately 3:00 p.m., weather permitting.


We protest this and push for time limits on the folowing issues:
 Family Court wasteful litigation is a $41 billion industry with Florida making up $1.9 billion of it. (Source: Taxpayer Cost of Divorce & Unwed Childbearing by Benjamin Scafidi, Institute for American Values)
 The legal system has a vested interest in family litigation.
 Florida Family Alimony Law dates back to 1828 before President Lincoln was in office.
 Unlawful for Florida to force one spouse, in a marriage, to work forever, to maintain a certain standard of living for the benefit of the other. But if a Florida couple divorce, the state will often force one ex-spouse to work forever, for the benefit of the other ex-spouse with the legal penalty of contempt court proceedings and imprisonment.
 Marital status cannot restrict your constitutional rights. Yet the Florida legislature gives judges permission to do this. Family Law takes over your personal decisions when ending a marriage.
 The State does NOT have a controlling interest in your getting married. The State should NOT have a controlling interest in your ending a marriage. Family Court currently has a controlling interest in financial support that last a lifetime between the ex-spouses.
 Countless families have been adversely affected by these outdated laws for generations.
 We invite ALL Floridians to join us and show our lawmakers the need to limit this wasteful family litigation, NOW!
 The time has arrived for our lawmakers to make laws that reflect the present day realities of the institution of marriage in our society and restore our constitutional rights.

Note:
If you would be interested in seeing a flyer that will be passed out at the rally, we can send you a PDF file on your request.

The following websites support the alimony reform movement and can provide you with further information:

www.alimonyreform.org
www.abolish-alimony.org
http://abolish-alimony.blogspot.com/
http://changethealimonylaws.blogspot.com/

Palm Beach County judge's hard-fought alimony victory may help other divorced people

Palm Beach County judge's hard-fought alimony victory may help other divorced people

See link below to Article below written by JANE MUSGRAVE (Palm Beach Post Staff Writer) for the Palm Beach Post:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/local_news/epaper/2009/01/21/french0122.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=76

ALIMONY REFORM RALLY ON FERUARY 23,2009 IN CLEARWATER/TAMPA

FLORIDA RESIDENTS: We need your attendance on February 23, 2009 in Clearwater/Tampa

There will be a peaceful Rally in support o Alimony Reform in front of the Courthouse. This is your chance to voice your opinion in front of the media!!!

Steve Drew s-drew@verizon.net is the Rallymaster for this event and can provide details as they are ready. Right now the event is in the planning and organization stage and is being co-ordinated with Dick Lindsey alimonyreform@hotmail.com. Further details will be forthcoming in subsequent posts.

We need your attendance to demonstrate to the public and media that this cause has wide support and that we must put an end to Permanent Alimony!!!!!

Media Opportunity for those paying too much in Alimony and/or Child Support

See Glenn Sack's article concerning this topic:

http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/index.php?tag=enewsletter120908

Here's the direct link to apply to try to appear on a TV show to tell your story:

http://glennsacks.com/media/20081209/index.php


This is a great opportunity for anyone paying alimony. Please apply ASAP !!!!

Proposed wording for Amending Florida’s Alimony Law

IMPROVE THE LAWS, INC.

(a Nonprofit Organization)

PO BOX 330566, MIAMI, FL 33233

We are working to change the unfair and unjust alimony laws in this country. Here is our Proposed wording for an Amendment to Florida’s Alimony Law (Section 61.08 of the Florida Statutes):

Purpose and Goal: This amendment addresses the major concerns of alimony payers that have been victims to Florida’s unfair and unjust alimony law! Improve the Laws Inc. is looking for legislators and/or The Florida Bar Family Section to support and sponsor a Bill that will include the changes specified below or similar changes in the 2008-2009 Legislative Session.

A bill to be entitled

An act relating to alimony; amending s. 61.08, F.S.; so that “alimony” is replaced with “rehabilitative support” for future support awards; so that past periodic permanent alimony orders and future rehabilitative support orders are limited to three years maximum except for cases involving a person that can not support himself or herself due to a mental or physical disability as defined by the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, and so that past alimony and future rehabilitative support payments are limited to the lesser of:

(1) 20 percent of the difference between the payer’s average monthly gross income and the recipient’s average monthly gross income;

OR

(2) The amount Ordered by the Court prior to DATE (insert DATE that bill will become law)

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Part 1: Subsection (1) thru Subsection (4) of Section 61.08, Florida Statutes, is amended to read as follows:

61.08 Alimony Rehabilitative Support

(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, the court may grant alimony rehabilitative support to either party, which alimony rehabilitative support may only be rehabilitative or permanent in nature. In any award of alimony rehabilitative support, the court may order periodic payments or payments in lump sum or both. The court may consider the adultery of either spouse and the circumstances thereof in determining the amount of alimony rehabilitative support, if any, to be awarded. In all dissolution actions, the court shall include findings of fact relative to the factors enumerated in subsection (2) supporting an award or denial of alimony rehabilitative support. In any award of rehabilitative support, the court may order rehabilitative support that remains in effect for no more than three (3) years after the date of the order, except in the following special circumstance: if the person to receive the support will not be able to support himself or herself through appropriate employment after three (3) years as evidenced by being determined to be disabled under the Social Security Disability Insurance(SSDI) program, the Supplemental Security Income(SSI) program, or a Veterans Administration Disability program. In the case of a disability, the disability must have occurred before the filing of dissolution of marriage. The Court may order rehabilitative support to continue for as long as the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration determines that the disability continues. A person receiving rehabilitative support beyond three (3) years must provide proof once a year (starting with the fourth year of receiving rehabilitative support) via writing to the payer of rehabilitative support showing that he or she is still determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration or the Veterans Administration. In the case of a disability, the Court may order periodic review of its order, not to exceed one review per year, on the request of either party or on its own motion, to determine whether the disability is continuing as specified in this subsection. A court may not order rehabilitative support payments that requires an alimony payer to pay monthly more than 20 percent of the difference between the payer’s average monthly gross income and the recipient’s average monthly gross income.

(2) In determining a proper award of alimony rehabilitative support or maintenance, the court shall consider all relevant economic factors, including but not limited to:

(a) The standard of living established during the marriage.

(b) The duration of the marriage.

(c) The age and the physical and emotional condition of each party.

(d) The financial resources of each party, the nonmarital and the marital assets and liabilities distributed to each.

(e) When applicable, the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment.

(f) The contribution of each party to the marriage, including, but not limited to, services rendered in homemaking, child care, education, and career building of the other party.

(g) All sources of income available to either party.

The court may consider any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.

(3) To the extent necessary to protect an award of alimony or rehabilitative support, the court may order any party who is has been ordered to pay alimony or rehabilitative support to purchase or maintain a life insurance policy or a bond, or to otherwise secure such alimony or rehabilitative support award with any other assets which may be suitable for that purpose.

(4)(a) With respect to any order requiring the payment of alimony or rehabilitative support entered on or after January 1, 1985, unless the provisions of paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) apply, the court shall direct in the order that the payments of alimony or rehabilitative support be made through the appropriate depository as provided in s. 61.181.

(b) With respect to any order requiring the payment of alimony entered before January 1, 1985, upon the subsequent appearance, on or after that date, of one or both parties before the court having jurisdiction for the purpose of modifying or enforcing the order or in any other proceeding related to the order, or upon the application of either party, unless the provisions of paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) apply, the court shall modify the terms of the order as necessary to direct that payments of alimony be made through the appropriate depository as provided in s. 61.181

(c) If there is no minor child, alimony or rehabilitative support payments need not be directed through the depository.

(d)1. If there is a minor child of the parties and both parties so request, the court may order that alimony or rehabilitative support payments need not be directed through the depository. In this case, the order of support shall provide, or be deemed to provide, that either party may subsequently apply to the depository to require that payments be made through the depository. The court shall provide a copy of the order to the depository.

2. If the provisions of subparagraph 1.apply, either party may subsequently file with the depository an affidavit alleging default or arrearages in payment and stating that the party wishes to initiate participation in the depository program. The party shall provide copies of the affidavit to the court and the other party or parties. Fifteen days after receipt of the affidavit, the depository shall notify all parties that future payments shall be directed to the depository.

3. In IV-D cases, the IV-D agency shall have the same rights as the obligee recipient of rehabilitative support in requesting that payments be made through the depository.

Part 2: A new Subsection (5) is to be added to 61.08, Florida Statutes, to read as follows:

(5) With respect to any order requiring the payment of alimony entered on or prior to DATE (insert DATE that bill will become law) and ordering a person to pay permanent periodic alimony or rehabilitative alimony for more than three (3) years, the following shall apply:

(a) An alimony recipient that has received alimony for more than three (3) years is not required to return the alimony payments already received.

(b) An alimony payer that has made 32 or less monthly payments of alimony will be required to pay alimony until 36 monthly payments of alimony or an equivalent amount has been paid. An alimony payer that has already made 33 or more monthly payments or an equivalent amount of alimony shall cease to make future alimony payments after he/she makes six (6) more monthly payments of alimony after DATE (enter date bill will become law). At the request of the alimony payer, the Court shall issue a new income deduction order to terminate the obligation of the alimony payments after the payments stated in this paragraph have been made. The court shall provide a copy of the order to the depository, if one was being utilized for the payments.

(c) Paragraph 5(b) above does not apply in the following special circumstance:

(1) the person to whom alimony is being paid was determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration before the filing of dissolution of marriage and the person is still considered to be disabled by the SSA or VA.

(2) the disability must have occurred before the filing of dissolution of marriage.

(d) If 5(c) is applicable, then the alimony support can only continue for as long as Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration determines that the disability continues.

(e) If 5(c) is applicable, then a person receiving alimony beyond three (3) years must provide written proof once a year (starting six (6) calendar months) after MONTH/YEAR (enter month bill will become law) to the alimony payer that he or she is still determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration or the Veterans Administration.

(f) If 5(c) is applicable, the Court may order periodic review of its order, not to exceed one review per year, on the request of either party or on its own motion, to determine whether the disability is continuing as specified in this subsection.

(g) If 5(c) is applicable, an alimony payer that must continue to make alimony payments that extend beyond six (6) more payments, must first make the next six (6) payments at the current amount and then the payer may lower his/her alimony payment using the lesser of the following monthly amounts:

(1) 20 percent of the difference between the payer's average monthly gross income and the recipient’s average monthly gross income;

OR

(2) The amount Ordered by the Court on or prior to DATE (insert DATE that bill will become law)

(h) If 5(g) is applicable, at the request of the alimony payer, the Court shall issue a new income deduction order to lower the alimony amount required to be paid. The court shall provide a copy of the order to the depository.

(i) If an Alimony payer has alimony arrearages on or prior to DATE (insert DATE that bill will become law), the arrearages shall be disputed as per existing law but the arrearages shall not prevent the alimony payments from being reduced or terminated as specified above in this subsection.

WHY FLORIDA’S ALIMONY LAW IS UNJUST AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED

WHY FLORIDA’S ALIMONY LAW, F.S. (§61.08), WHICH ALLOWS PERMANENT ALIMONY, IS UNJUST AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED:

• This law allows the Courts to force an ex-spouse to pay PERMANENT ALIMONY to the other ex-spouse forever, unless the receiver of alimony remarries or dies.
• This law was written in 1828 when alimony when most women did not work, did not have careers, and always stayed home caring for the kids.
• It does not matter how old you are at time of divorce or if the receiver was working at time of divorce; even a 30-year-old person can be forced to pay alimony forever.
• This law has loopholes so big that the alimony recipient can live with a lover and the children, be financially supported by the lover, and still receive alimony as long as the alimony recipient does not remarry. These loopholes encourage the receiver of Alimony to cohabitate with someone and never remarry destroying our family values.
• It does not matter if the payer of alimony remarries, he/she still has to pay alimony forever.
• All sources of income can be taken away from the payer to pay for alimony, even social security and disability benefits.
• This law destroys families as it gives the alimony receiver financial priority over the children of the ex-marriage.
• The state of Florida does not force a parent to support children over 18 years of age but it forces them to support an ex-spouse.
• This law creates financial difficulties for the payer/parent and therefore causing the parent to spend less time with his/her children.
• This law takes away the alimony recipient's desire and need to rehabilitate themselves and therefore defeats the purpose of any rehabilitative alimony or support that is awarded by the Courts.
• Texas has already limited the time of support given to an ex-spouse to 3 years. Florida’s legislators and laws are behind in the times.
• Texas’ alimony law has been in place and working for over 15 years.
• “One third of wives are chief breadwinners” ( source MSN.com) These wives will be forced to pay Permanent Alimony to ex-husbands because they (the women) made more money during the marriage. This shows that this existing problem with the Alimony Law is a problem being faced by both genders.
• Florida is losing a lot of residents because of the Alimony Law. Those residents are leaving the state because they know that if they get a divorce here that they will probably have to pay the ex-spouse alimony for the rest of their lives.
• This law is bad for Florida’s economy. The Alimony money that is now being wasted by ex-spouses could otherwise be used to start businesses in Florida.
• This Law is bad for families. It is encouraging divorces and encouraging the alimony recipients to not remarry and therefore destroying family fabric and values.