Nominal Alimony: The Not-So-New Kid on the Block

99 Nesbit Street 33 S. Indiana Avenue
Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Englewood, FL 34223
Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443

WWW.FARR.COM

GUY S. EMERICH DAVID A. HOLMES WILL W. SUNTER
JACK O. HACKETT II GARY A. KAHLE FORREST J. BASS
CHARLES T. BOYLE ROGER H. MILLER III NATALIE C. LASHWAY
DAROL H.M. CARR DOROTHY L. KORSZEN GEORGE T. WILLIAMSON

NOMINAL ALIMONY:
THE NOT-SO-NEW KID ON THE BLOCK
by Charles T. Boyle and Natalie C. Lashway

Charles T. Boyle Natalie C. Lashway

Personal Injury & Wrongful Death • Litigation • Estate Planning • Real Estate & Title
Insurance • Marital & Family • Business • Elder Law • Asset Protection

The Florida Legislature recently amended Section 61.08, Florida Statutes - The Alimony Statute.1 Those
amendments apply to all pending cases and all cases filed after July 1, 2010.2 The Alimony Statute does not mention
nominal alimony, but case law has authorized such an award since at least 1967.3 Similarly, the concept of reserving
jurisdiction to award alimony has been recognized by case law for over 51 years.4 Despite its long-standing existence,
courts do not commonly award nominal alimony or reserve jurisdiction on the issue of alimony.5 However, awards of
nominal alimony or reservations of jurisdiction are becoming more and more prevalent.6 Given the current economic state
and the high unemployment rate throughout Florida, it is extremely important for family law practitioners to consider the
issue of nominal alimony or reservation of jurisdiction on the issue of alimony as they prepare their cases.
What is nominal alimony? Essentially, nominal alimony is a variant of permanent periodic alimony. In its most
traditional form, nominal alimony is awarded when permanent periodic alimony would otherwise be appropriate, but the
obligor spouse currently has little or no ability to pay.7 Courts have awarded nominal alimony in varying amounts.8 When
a court awards nominal alimony in order to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony in the future, the court’s intent to do
so “should be clearly demonstrated in the final judgment.”9 The Fifth District Court of Appeals has instructed courts
to expressly reserve jurisdiction on alimony, rather than award nominal alimony for that purpose.10 However, the Fifth
District Court of Appeals has since reviewed nominal alimony cases without similar instruction.11
In order for a court to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony, there should be “a likelihood of a change in
circumstances in the future that would warrant an award of alimony . . . . In other words, there must presently appear
in the record foreseeable circumstances to take place in the future as would at that time support an award of alimony.”12
In Zarycki-Weig, the court upheld a denial of nominal alimony in a gray area marriage where no likelihood of a change
in circumstances that would support an award of alimony was presented.13 Other courts dealing with nominal alimony,
however, fail to make any mention of a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the future or refer to any facts supporting
such a finding.14
The stereotypical scenario for nominal alimony involves a long-term marriage where there is a disparity of income
between the spouses, but, at the time of trial, the obligor’s employment or income status has changed so that the obligor
does not have the ability to pay and therefore the income disparity does not presently exist. See, for example, Misiak, in
which all of these elements were present.15 During the long-term marriage, the wife did not work, but the husband earned
substantial income permitting them to enjoy a high standard of living.16 At the time of trial, however, the husband was
unemployed.17 The trial court denied alimony because the husband did not have the present ability to pay and the wife did

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


not have the need based on her share of equitable distribution.18 The appellate court reversed and remanded for an award
of nominal alimony.19 Likewise, in Cunningham, all the factors of the traditional nominal alimony case were present.20 The
parties were married for 27 years, during which the husband had earned substantially more income than the wife.21 For
eight years of the marriage the wife stayed home to raise their children.22 At the time of the final hearing, the husband’s
income had decreased, but the husband expected his income would increase in the near future.23 Nonetheless, the
husband’s income was still higher than the wife’s at the final hearing.24 The trial court denied nominal alimony finding
that the wife had the need, but the husband did not have the ability to pay.25 The appellate court reversed and remanded
for nominal alimony to be awarded.26
Notwithstanding the stereotypical situation, nominal alimony has also been awarded in other types of cases. See,
for example, Lightcap, in which most of the elements of the traditional situation were present, but the wife did not have a
current need for alimony.27 The parties were married for over 30 years during which time the husband earned more than
the wife.28 At the end of the marriage, the wife secured a well-paid position and the husband retired.29 Despite having
income in excess of the husband’s at the time of trial, the trial court awarded the wife nominal alimony which the appellate
court later affirmed.30 In Schlagel, the wife did not have a demonstrated need for alimony at the time of trial because
income was imputed to her.31 However, the Second District Court of Appeal found it was an abuse of discretion to fail
to award at least nominal alimony.32 The court found that an award of nominal alimony was required in case the needy
spouse was “unable to secure employment, after using her best efforts, in the imputed amount.”33
Also, in modification actions seeking the termination of permanent periodic alimony, rather than terminating
alimony altogether, courts have reduced alimony to a nominal amount.34 Section 61.14(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010),
permits either the reduction or termination of alimony when an obligee resides with and has a supportive relationship
with another person. However, case law demonstrates that courts prefer to reduce, rather than terminate, alimony in this
situation.35 In Bridges, the former husband petitioned the trial court for termination of his alimony obligation based upon
his former wife’s cohabitation.36 The trial court terminated the former husband’s alimony obligation.37 The First District
Court of Appeal modified the judgment to provide the former wife with nominal alimony, ruling that nominal alimony
should be awarded to protect the former wife’s future interests in case of a significant change in circumstances.38 In its
ruling, the First District noted that “[t]he voluntary contribution of a live-in companion cannot be equated with the legal
obligation of a [spouse or] former spouse.”39

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


Nominal alimony has also been awarded where one party’s potential failure to comply with equitable distribution
could create a need and necessitate alimony.40 In Bongiorno, the equitable distribution award provided for the wife to
receive income from a closely held corporation.41 The husband controlled all funds flowing through the corporation and
had the ability to disrupt the wife’s income stream.42 The trial court, therefore, awarded the wife nominal alimony in
case the husband failed to properly distribute income from the corporation.43 When the husband failed to distribute any
income to the wife, the trial court found that the wife had a need for alimony and awarded her lump sum alimony.44 On
appeal, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding the husband in contempt for failing to pay the
lump sum alimony.45
Nominal alimony may be increased at a later date. To increase alimony, a party must prove either an increase
in need or an increase in ability to pay.46 In England, the former wife sought a modification of alimony that the court
had ordered approximately 21 years earlier.47 The court referred to the previously ordered $75 per month alimony as
nominal.48 The court found that there was both a substantial increase in need and a substantial increase in ability to pay,
thereby supporting a modification of the nominal alimony.49
Unless nominal alimony is awarded or jurisdiction is reserved to award alimony, a party is forever precluded from
obtaining an award of alimony after the conclusion of dissolution of marriage proceedings.50 Therefore, it is critical for
family law practitioners to consider requesting nominal alimony or reserving jurisdiction on the issue of alimony.
The following is a survey of Florida appellate cases involving nominal alimony or reservation of jurisdiction on the

alimony issue.51 The charts are divided into subject area and cases are arranged by court and date of decision.

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


NO CURRENT ABILITY TO PAY
LENGTH OF TRIAL COURT APPELLATE
CASE FACTS
MARRIAGE ACTION COURT ACTION
Biskie v. Biskie, 15 years ▪Gray area marriage ▪H awarded almost ▪Reversed denial of
37 So. 3d 970 ▪During the marriage, W all of parties’ PPA
(Fla. 1st DCA 2010) sporadically worked outside the significant, but short- ▪Remanded for at least
home due, in part, to relocations term, debt NA to be awarded
for H’s career ▪No ability to pay
▪W was 59 & owned home-based ▪Denied PPA
business
▪H was 48 & was director of
human resources
▪H’s income had been reduced
by 20%, but he expected it to
increase
Reed v. Reed Not specified in Not specified in opinion. ▪Denied alimony ▪Amended to reserve
244 So. 2d 449 opinion. ▪Failed to reserve jurisdiction
(Fla. 1st DCA 1971) jurisdiction ▪Likelihood of
improvement in H’s
financial circumstances
that would enable him
to pay
Melton v. Melton, Not specified in ▪1 minor child ▪Denied alimony ▪Affirmed denial of
251 So. 2d 705 opinion. ▪H was 26 & employed by phone ▪Failed to reserve alimony
(Fla. 1st DCA 1971) company jurisdiction ▪Reversed failure to
▪W was 23 reserve jurisdiction
▪W graduated from junior college ▪Not unreasonable
& worked as substitute teacher, for court to anticipate
but had been unemployed for reduction in W’s
some time needs based on
▪During DOM proceedings, W her contemplated
had applied for job employment
Schmidt v. Schmidt, 15 years ▪During marriage, H worked as ▪W entitled to PPA, ▪Reversed reservation
997 So. 2d 451 salesman at $120,000/year but H did not have of jurisdiction for only
(Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ▪H was laid off during DOM present ability to pay 2 years
proceedings and found similar ▪Awarded rehab ▪Remanded for NA to
work at $78,000/year alimony for 2 years be awarded
▪At time of DOM, W owned ▪Reserved
retail store & there was jurisdiction on
conflicting evidence as to alimony issue for 2
whether she made any income years

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


CASE FACTS
Fleck v. Fleck, 11 years ▪Gray area marriage ▪Imputed income to ▪Reversed & remanded
958 So. 2d 1043 ▪H made over $225,000/year W at $20,800/year for court to consider
(Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ▪W had no income, but had ▪H was primary NA & either find NA is
college degree in marketing residential parent of inappropriate or award
their 6 children NA
▪Assigned H almost
all substantial
marital debt
▪No present ability
to pay
▪Denied alimony “at
this time”
▪Did not reserve
jurisdiction
Cunningham v. 27 years ▪Children over 18 ▪W had need, but H ▪Reversed & remanded
Cunningham, ▪During marriage, H earned did not have ability for court to award NA
930 So. 2d 719 substantially more than W to pay ▪Factors favor PPA,
(Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ▪W stayed home for 8 years of ▪Alimony factors although nominal at
marriage did not favor award this time
▪At time of DOM, H’s income of alimony because
was less than during most of equitable distribution
marriage, but H expected his put them on equal
income to increase in near future footing
▪Did not reserve
jurisdiction
Blanchard v. over 30 years ▪Children over 18 ▪H’s job would either ▪Reversed as to bridge
Blanchard, ▪W worked as teacher become profitable the gap alimony &
793 So. 2d 989 ▪H earned significantly more in next few years failure to reserve
(Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ▪H changed careers to pursue or he would change jurisdiction on PPA for
photography & parties agreed to careers for a more W
same, at least initially profitable career ▪Remanded for court to
▪At time of DOM, H was not ▪Awarded bridge the award NA to W
earning much income in new gap alimony to H
career ▪Denied PPA to W
because her income
exceeded H’s

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


CASE FACTS
Stock v. Stock, Not specified in ▪Minor children ▪W was entitled to ▪Affirmed reservation
693 So. 2d 1080 opinion. ▪H earned 61% of parties’ alimony of jurisdiction as
(Fla. 2d DCA 1997) combined monthly income ▪H’s ability to pay there was a likelihood
▪Lived beyond their means alimony limited of change in
because of child circumstances in future
support payments that would permit H to
▪Reserved pay alimony
jurisdiction to award
PPA
Gildea v. Gildea, 21 years ▪2 minor children & 1 child over ▪Awarded PPA to W ▪Amount of PPA
593 So. 2d 1212 18 exceeded H’s ability
(Fla. 2d DCA 1992) ▪During marriage, H made to pay
significantly more than W ▪Reversed & remanded
▪H was terminated from job for PPA or NA to be
during DOM proceedings, but awarded commensurate
seeking reemployment with H’s ability and to
reserve jurisdiction
Purrinos v. Purrinos, 15 years ▪3 minor children ▪Denied alimony ▪Reversed & remanded
34 So. 3d 244 ▪During marriage, H earned for NA to be awarded
(Fla. 3d DCA 2010) substantially more
▪At time of final hearing, H was
temporarily & involuntarily
unemployed, but expected
reemployment
Gulbrandson v. 23 years ▪Children over 18 ▪H’s income likely ▪W’s need not
Gulbrandson, ▪During most of marriage, W to change based on established
22 So. 3d 640 cared for children & home either success or ▪Reversed & remanded
(Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ▪At time of DOM, W was not failure of invention for court to award
employed & did not have health & company NA to accommodate
insurance ▪Awarded PPA to change in H’s income
▪W had back & neck issues W in lump sum of & change in W’s need
▪H in good health $237,000 (due to increased need
▪H worked as engineer & because of health
inventor insurance)

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


CASE FACTS
Squindo v. Squindo, over 25 years ▪Children over 18 ▪H had ability to get ▪Evidence did not
943 So. 2d 232 ▪During marriage, H worked for financial assistance support finding that
(Fla. 3d DCA 2006) family company in Switzerland from family H has ability to
making $120,000/year ▪Awarded PPA pay or that H was
▪Parties lived lavish lifestyle until underemployed
they moved to FL ▪Ability of H to get
▪At time of DOM, H worked at financial assistance
the University of Florida making from family was
$33,000/year irrelevant
▪W did not work ▪Reversed PPA
& remanded for
consideration of NA
or reservation of
jurisdiction in case of
significant change in
circumstances in future
Wing v. Wing, 20 years ▪At time of DOM, H’s income ▪Denied PPA ▪W entitled to PPA
429 So. 2d 782 was reduced ▪Reduction in H’s
(Fla. 3d DCA 1983) income was temporary
▪Reversed denial of
alimony
▪Remanded for NA to
be awarded

Zarycki-Weig v. Weig, 15 years, ▪Gray area marriage ▪W may have a need, ▪Affirmed denial of
25 So. 3d 573 including 4 years ▪H was lawyer making $78,000/ but H did not have alimony
(Fla. 4th DCA 2009) of separation year ability ▪No abuse of discretion
▪W worked intermittently during ▪Denied PPA in denying NA because
marriage, most recently as store ▪Denied NA this was a gray area
manager making $38,000/year because there was marriage & there
no evidence of was no evidence of
likelihood of change likelihood of change
that would support in circumstances that
award of alimony would support award of
alimony
Salazar v. Salazar, 31 years ▪1 minor child ▪W had need, but H ▪Reversed & remanded
976 So. 2d 1155 ▪H worked 40+ hours/week for did not have ability to award PPA or NA
(Fla. 4th DCA 2008) $15/hour ▪Imputed income
▪W worked 25 hours/week for to W
$10/hour ▪H still had $2,019
▪W had worked full-time in past more monthly
and there was no reason she income than W
could not do so

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


CASE FACTS
Fusco v. Fusco, Not specified in Not specified in opinion. ▪Imputed income ▪Reversed PPA &
616 So. 2d 86 opinion. to H remanded to award
(Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ▪Awarded PPA to NA to protect FW’s
W based on H’s interests in case H’s
imputed income income improved
Boyle v. Boyle, 25 years ▪Children over 18 ▪W entitled to PPA ▪Reversed & remanded
30 So. 3d 665 ▪During marriage, H worked at ▪Awarded NA to because it was error
(Fla. 5th DCA 2010) Lowe’s W based on H’s to not consider assets
▪During DOM proceedings, H inability to pay awarded to H in
lost his job equitable distribution
▪During most of marriage, W in determining ability
stayed home with children to pay
▪After separation, W had lower-
level employment making $10-
11/hour
Marshall v. Marshall, 37 years ▪H was disabled & his retirement ▪Awarded NA to W ▪Affirmed NA
953 So. 2d 23 was his sole income in case H’s ability to
(Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ▪W was able bodied, had pay changed in the
stable income & had ready future
employability
▪Parties’ incomes were relatively
the same, no great disparity in
parties’ financial circumstances
Misiak v. Misiak, long-term ▪During marriage, W did not ▪Denied NA ▪Reversed & remanded
898 So. 2d 1159 work & H earned substantial ▪Although alimony for NA to be awarded
(Fla. 5th DCA 2005) income would normally be to W
▪High standard of living awarded based on
▪H unemployed after leaving job the length of the
due to medical reasons marriage, lifestyle
▪H was able to go back to work, & H’s earning
but had not secured employment potential, H did not
yet have ability & W did
▪At time of appeal, H was 58 not have need
▪W’s needs met by equitable
distribution
Felipe v. Felipe, 18 years ▪During marriage, H was primary ▪Denied PPA without ▪Reversed & remanded
669 So. 2d 357 provider explanation for at least NA to be
(Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ▪During DOM proceedings, H’s awarded
income decreased

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


NO CURRENT NEED
CASE FACTS
Herman v. Herman, ~4 years ▪W diagnosed with kidney ▪Reserved ▪Reversed indefinite
889 So. 2d 128 disease during marriage jurisdiction reservation of
(Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ▪H & W were young indefinitely jurisdiction because W
▪Likely that W did not have claim for
would have medical PPA
problems in future & ▪Remanded to
would have need determine whether it
is necessary to reserve
jurisdiction, &, if so, to
establish a reasonable
time limit
Margarowicz 35 years ▪Children over 18 ▪Denied PPA ▪Affirmed denial of
v.Margarowicz, ▪W was 53 & mildly diabetic, but ▪Failed to reserve PPA without reservation
429 So. 2d 376 it was controlled by medication jurisdiction on of jurisdiction
(Fla. 1st DCA 1983) & diet alimony issue ▪No abuse of discretion
▪W worked as a nurse to not award PPA as W
▪H had net monthly income of had a stable job, got the
about $600 more than W marital home without
any mortgage, & did
not demonstrate need
and ability to pay
▪No abuse of discretion
to not reserve
jurisdiction as the
circumstances of the
case did not show
that reservation was
required
Kirby v. Kirby, Not specified in ▪2 minor children ▪W did not have ▪No abuse of discretion
111 So. 2d 299 opinion. ▪W was teacher need in failing to reserve
(Fla. 1st DCA 1959) ▪H was Army sergeant ▪Failed to award jurisdiction
alimony or reserve
jurisdiction
Perkovich v. ~28 years ▪H made $450,000/year ▪Awarded PPA to ▪Reversed PPA to the
Humphrey-Perkovich, ▪W made $320,000/year W based on their extent that it relied on
2 So. 3d 348 ▪Part of W’s income was from disparate incomes the disparate incomes
(Fla. 2d DCA 2008) performing surgery & possible impact of the parties
▪W had medical condition that of her medical ▪Remanded for court
could affect her ability to do condition on her to consider NA in case
surgery future earnings W’s income decreased
in future

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


NO CURRENT NEED
CASE FACTS
Schlagel v. Schlagel, 21 years ▪H made $69,500/year ▪Imputed income to ▪Reversed denial of
973 So. 2d 672 ▪Reasonably modest lifestyle W at $40,000/year PPA
(Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ▪During marriage, W took care ▪Denied PPA ▪Remanded for NA
of child, but had worked outside to be awarded in case
the home W is unable to secure
▪W’s highest income was employment, after
$26,683/year about 10 years using her best efforts,
before DOM in the amount imputed
▪W was Turkish, but obtained her
undergraduate & law degrees in
the US
▪W unsuccessfully took the Bar
Exam 4 times
Nourse v. Nourse, 23 years ▪H worked for the state ▪Awarded bridge the ▪Reversed & remanded
948 So. 2d 903 ▪W was unemployed, although gap alimony based for at least NA to be
(Fla. 2d DCA 2007) previously worked from home on finding that W awarded based on
▪W was permanently disabled would be able to historic incomes of
because she was bipolar regain some kind of the parties, length of
▪W’s condition could improve employment once the marriage, & W’s
with medication & lifestyle stress of DOM was potential future needs
changes, but she would only be over ▪Finding that W
able to secure menial labor would be able to seek
employment after DOM
was not supported by
the evidence
Italiano v. Italiano, ~18 years ▪During the entire marriage, H ▪Awarded NA ▪Reversed NA
873 So. 2d 558 was CEO & COO of company & because W might ▪Error to award NA
(Fla. 2d DCA 2004) W did not work have need in the because of the unusual
▪Parties stipulated to W’s future circumstances of the
entitlement to PPA & W’s present case
lack of need ▪Determination of need
& ability must be made
at the time of final
hearing & court cannot
speculate as to what
might happen in the
future
Holdstein v. Holdstein, 17 years ▪During marriage, W was ▪Awarded PPA to H ▪Reversed & remanded
884 So. 2d 87 primary provider & earned for clarification of H’s
(Fla. 2d DCA 2004) substantially more than H need
▪H worked mostly in retail sales ▪If need but no ability
during marriage demonstrated, NA
▪H was bipolar & recovering could still be awarded
alcoholic on remand

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


NO CURRENT NEED
CASE FACTS
Lightcap v. Lightcap, over 30 years ▪During most of marriage, H was ▪Awarded NA to W ▪Affirmed NA
14 So. 3d 259 employed in highly skilled & ▪H had ability to ▪NA appropriate in
(Fla. 3d DCA 2009) well paid job work, but chose not case H realized his full
▪During marriage, W worked in to earning potential
clerical jobs ▪H had ability to earn
▪At the very end of the marriage, $40,000 to $200,000
W secured a well paying job & H per year
retired
▪At time of DOM, W earned
more than H
Esteva v. Rodriguez, 16 years ▪Child over 18 ▪Denied NA ▪Reversed denial of
913 So. 2d 684 ▪H worked as salesman & ▪Expressed concern alimony & remanded
(Fla. 3d DCA 2005) developed businesses about the future for court to determine
▪W worked as teacher during of W’s medical whether NA should be
marriage & at time of DOM condition granted
▪W had fibromyalgia, but ▪Unclear whether trial
continued to work court considered NA &
▪H was 7-9 years younger than W decided not to award it
(decision is inconsistent) or thought it could not
award NA
Castillo v. Castillo, less than 5 years ▪Minor children ▪Awarded NA to W ▪Reversed NA
626 So. 2d 1035 ▪During most of marriage, H in case H’s income because 1) short-term
(Fla. 3d DCA 1993) worked as manager at $30,000- increased marriage; 2) W was
$77,000/year 37, self-supporting,
▪H was laid off & reemployed at & did not have any
$12,000/year disability; 3) neither
▪At time of DOM, W made party had significant
$21,000/year nonmarital financial
resources; & 4) W
did not sacrifice her
career or educational
opportunities
Schwartz v. Schwartz, Not specified in ▪W’s income just about equaled ▪Awarded PPA to W ▪Reversed PPA
450 So. 2d 277 opinion. H’s & remanded for
(Fla. 3d DCA 1984) ▪W’s earning capacity and net reservation of
worth exceeded H’s jurisdiction to award
alimony to either party
in future

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


NO CURRENT NEED
CASE FACTS
Weinman v. Weinman, 25 years ▪2 minor children ▪Awarded W ▪Modified judgment
310 So. 2d 442 ▪At time of DOM, H had net possession of home to reserve jurisdiction
(Fla. 3d DCA 1975) income of about twice as much until minor children on alimony issue
as W reached majority based on termination
(about 2 years from of possession of home
date of DOM) or W in at most 2 years &
remarried, whichever that circumstances
occurred earlier obviating W’s current
▪Denied PPA need could change
▪W had no current
need based on
having possession of
home & her current
income
Dings v. Dings, Not specified in Not specified in opinion. ▪Found that W was ▪Error not to reserve
161 So. 2d 227 opinion. self-supporting & jurisdiction to award
(Fla. 3d DCA 1964) had no need alimony in future if
▪Denied W alimony alimony was applied
for & properly
allowable
▪Failure to award
alimony or reserve
jurisdiction would
preclude W from ever
getting alimony in
case of a change of
circumstances

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


NO CURRENT NEED
CASE FACTS
Schiff v. Schiff, Not specified in ▪Minor child ▪Denied alimony ▪Reversed denial
123 So. 2d 295 opinion. ▪W was able to earn money by because W was able of alimony without
(Fla. 3d DCA 1960) giving piano lessons to make money reserving jurisdiction
giving piano lessons ▪Trial court should have
either awarded alimony
to W or, if it found W
was able to provide
for her livelihood,
should have reserved
jurisdiction
▪Without reserving
jurisdiction, court cut
off her right to apply to
the court for alimony
in the future in the
event of a change
in circumstances
rendering her unable to
teach music
Evans v. Evans, 23 years ▪1 minor child, 3 children over 18 ▪Failed to reserve ▪Reversed & remanded
337 So. 2d 998 ▪W was school teacher earning jurisdiction on for reservation of
(Fla. 4th DCA 1976) $9,500/year alimony issue jurisdiction on alimony
▪H earned $14,040/year issue
▪Both parties were in their early ▪W did not have a
50s present need, but
likelihood of need
in the future based
on termination of
exclusive use and
possession of marital
home, W’s age &
potential health
problems, & W’s ability
to compete in job
market
Ellis v. Ellis, 39 years ▪H was police officer & retired ▪Awarded NA to W ▪Affirmed NA award
699 So. 2d 280 17 years before DOM ▪Distributed the ▪NA was appropriate
(Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ▪Parties started a corporation & stock in corporation in case corporation’s
had retail stores to W profitability decreased
▪Corporation ran souvenir stores
which had been relocated, closed,
& had competitors
▪W was 57 & had medical issues
▪H was 60 & was manic
depressant

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


NO CURRENT NEED
CASE FACTS
Davis v. Davis, ~35 years ▪H had 9th grade education ▪Imputed income ▪Reversed imputation
691 So. 2d 626 ▪H retired from naval career to H of income & PPA &
(Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ▪H retired from tugboat career ▪Awarded PPA to remanded for court to
▪H was 55 & had arthritis W based on H’s consider NA in case
▪W never worked outside home imputed income W’s medical expenses
▪W had cancer previously & had increased (given her
medical issues history of cancer
▪W would not be able to get and inability to get
health insurance insurance)
▪Finding of H’s
income potential was
unsupported by the
evidence
▪No evidence
supporting W’s need
for alimony
Moore v. Moore, 31 years ▪Children over 18 ▪Awarded NA to H ▪Affirmed NA to H
401 So. 2d 841 ▪During marriage, H worked as ▪Not error to award H
(Fla. 5th DCA 1981) electrician NA based on length of
▪W didn’t work until last 9 years marriage, H paying for
of marriage, after H paid for W & children to go to
her to go to college & get her college, & foregoing
master’s saving for himself
▪For last 9 years of marriage, ▪Evidence of ability,
W worked as instructor at but not of need
community college ▪Evidence supported
▪W was 50 & in good health that H may have need
▪H was 53, was injured on the in future if he is no
job, & may have need for future longer able to work as
support due to his deteriorating electrician
health

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


MODIFICATION ACTION
TRIAL COURT
CASE FACTS APPELLATE COURT ACTION
ACTION
Castleberry v. ▪At time of modification, FW ▪Reduced alimony, ▪Reversed & remanded for alimony to be
Castleberry, earned more than FH but still more than reduced to NA
29 So. 3d 1207 NA
(Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
Bridges v. Bridges, ▪FW cohabitated with man & ▪Terminated alimony ▪Judgment modified to award FW NA
842 So. 2d 983 they contributed to the financial ▪NA should be awarded to protect FW’s
(Fla. 1st DCA 2003) support of each other future interests in case of a significant
▪FW and man exchanged vows & change in circumstances
rings in a ceremony, but were not ▪“The voluntary contribution of a live-in
legally married companion cannot be equated with the
legal obligation of a [spouse or] former
spouse”
Brewer v. Brewer, ▪FH lost job as attorney, was ▪Terminated alimony ▪Reversed termination of alimony &
898 So. 2d 986 unable to find comparable remanded for NA to be awarded
(Fla. 2d DCA 2005) employment, & opened office as ▪FH’s income could increase in future
a sole practitioner ▪Need to preserve FW’s future rights
Reno v. Reno, ▪FW cohabitated with & was ▪Terminated alimony ▪Reversed termination of alimony &
884 So. 2d 462 financially supported by fiancé remanded for NA to be awarded
(Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ▪FH didn’t request termination, ▪Evidence supported finding that almost all
only requested reduction of FW’s living expenses were paid by her
fiancé & that may support termination of
alimony, but FH didn’t request that
▪FW’s needs may change in future
England v. England, ▪18 year marriage ▪$75 per month PPA ▪Reversed denial of increase in PPA
520 So. 2d 699 ▪FW was 65.5, was supported was awarded to W in ▪Remanded for PPA to be increased
(Fla. 4th DCA 1988) by her son for years, & was DOM in 1967 ▪To increase alimony, need to prove either
unable to support herself on her ▪FW sought increase in need or increase in ability
$345 monthly income of Social modification to ▪Here, there was both a substantial
Security, government subsidy for increase PPA increase in ability & a substantial increase
son, & alimony ▪Denied increase in in need
▪FH was 63 & had income of PPA
$1,807 per month
Olsen v. Olsen, ▪FH retired due to medical issues ▪Reduced PPA to ▪Reversed & remanded to redetermine
964 So. 2d 798 ▪FW was working as hotel desk $200/month FW’s income & expenses & reconsider
(Fla. 5th DCA 2007) clerk reduction or termination of alimony
▪Parties in their mid - late 60s ▪FW’s income & expenses appeared to be
▪Both parties testified to having calculated incorrectly
medical issues ▪If FW is not in peril of poverty, then trial
court may consider reducing alimony to
NA

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


MODIFICATION ACTION
TRIAL COURT
CASE FACTS APPELLATE COURT ACTION
ACTION
Pill v. Pill, ▪FW cohabitated with boyfriend ▪Reduced alimony by ▪Reversed & remanded for NA to be
583 So. 2d 1114 who paid rent & did yard work & value of boyfriend’s awarded for so long as FW does not have
(Fla. 5th DCA 1991) maintenance yard work & a need
maintenance, but ▪FW’s income exceeds her needs
failed to consider rent
money paid to FW by
boyfriend

LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
APPELLATE
CASE FACTS TRIAL COURT ACTION COURT
ACTION
Bongiorno v. Yule, ▪At time of DOM, W did ▪NA awarded because there was a possibility that ▪Affirmed order
920 So. 2d 1209 not have a need because alimony would be necessary in the future of contempt
(Fla. 1st DCA 2006) she would receive income ▪In modification action after H failed to pay W any
from marital ownership in money from corporate income, W was awarded
corporation alimony
▪H was in charge of all funds ▪W had the need for alimony as a result of H’s
flowing thru the corporation & failure to comply with equitable distribution
had the ability to disrupt W’s ▪H failed to pay alimony and was found in
income stream contempt

(Endnotes)
1 2010 Fla. Laws 2010-199; 2010 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. 2010-199.
2 Id.
3 Section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (2010) indicates that “the court may grant alimony to either party which alimony may be
bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative, durational, or permanent in nature…”; DuVernoy v. DuVernoy, 202 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
4 Kirby v. Kirby, 111 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).
5 After an informal review, the authors found 61 Florida appellate cases that referenced nominal alimony or the reservation of
jurisdiction on alimony.
6 After an informal review, the authors found 32 Florida appellate cases that referenced nominal alimony or reservation of
jurisdiction on alimony from 2000-2010, versus 29 cases from 1959-2000.
7 See, e.g., Cunningham v. Cunningham, 930 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (where husband earned substantially more than
wife during the marriage and wife stayed home with the children for 8 years of marriage, but husband’s current income was less than
during most of marriage, court found that nominal alimony was appropriate).
8 See, Oluwek v. Oluwek, 2 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ($100/month); Zohourian v. Zohourian, 829 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2002) ($10/month); England v. England, 520 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) ($75/month); Hague v. Hague, 382 So. 2d 852 (Fla.
3d DCA 1980) ($40/month).
9 Gosline v. Gosline, 435 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
10 O’Neal v. O’Neal, 407 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
11 See, e.g., Boyle v. Boyle, 30 So. 3d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Olsen v. Olsen, 964 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Marshall
v. Marshall, 953 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Misiak v. Misiak, 898 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Ellis v. Ellis, 699 So. 2d 280
(Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Davis v. Davis, 691 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Felipe v. Felipe, 669 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Pill

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


v. Pill, 583 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
12 Roy v. Roy, 522 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
13 Zarycki-Weig v. Weig, 25 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
14 See, Lightcap v. Lightcap, 14 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Marshall, 953 So. 2d 23; Squindo v. Squindo, 943 So. 2d 232
(Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Misiak, 898 So. 2d 1159; Zohourian, 829 So. 2d 256; Felipe, 669 So. 2d 357; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 450 So. 2d
277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
15 Misiak, 898 So. 2d 1159.
16 Id. at 1159.
17 Id. at 1159 – 1160.
18 Id. at 1160.
19 Id. at 1160.
20 Cunningham, 930 So. 2d 719.
21 Id. at 719.
22 Id. at 719.
23 Id. at 719, 720.
24 Id. at 719.
25 Id. at 719, 720.
26 Id. at 721.
27 Lightcap, 14 So. 3d 259.
28 Id. at 260.
29 Id. at 259.
30 Id. at 259, 260.
31 Schlagel v. Schlagel, 973 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
32 Id. at 676.
33 Id. at 676-677.
34 See, e.g., Castleberry v. Castleberry, 29 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Olsen, 964 So. 2d 798; Brewer v. Brewer, 898 So.2d
986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Reno v. Reno, 884 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Bridges v. Bridges, 842 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003);
Pill, 583 So. 2d 1114.
35 See, Brewer, 898 So. 2d 986; Reno, 884 So. 2d 462; Bridges, 842 So. 2d 983; Pill, 583 So. 2d 1114.
36 Bridges, 842 So. 2d at 984.
37 Id. at 983.
38 Id. at 984.
39 Id. at 984 (quoting Long v. Long, 622 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)).
40 Bongiorno v. Yule, 920 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
41 Id. at 1210.
42 Id. at 1210.
43 Id. at 1210.
44 Id. at 1210.
45 Id. at 1209-1210.
46 England, 520 So. 2d 699.
47 Id.
48 Id. at 702.
49 Id. at 701.
50 DuVernoy, 202 So. 2d 620; Dings v. Dings, 161 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Schiff v. Schiff, 123 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA
1960); Weiss v. Weiss, 118 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).
51 For purpose of brevity, nominal alimony is referred to as “NA,” permanent periodic alimony is referred to as “PPA,” husband is
referred to as “H,” former husband is referred to as “FH,” wife is referred to as “W,” former wife is referred to as “FW,” and dissolution
of marriage is referred to as “DOM.”

Phone: 941.639.1158 Phone: 941.460.9334
Fax: 941.639.0028 Fax: 941.460.9443
WWW.FARR.COM


Nominal Alimony: The Not-So-New Kid on the Block

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Nominal Alimony: The Not-So-New Kid on the Block

Ähnlich wie Nominal Alimony: The Not-So-New Kid on the Block (20)

Nominal Alimony: The Not-So-New Kid on the Block