Written by: Lenorae Atter, Attorney at Law
A disparity in income does not, in fact, mean that because one party makes more than the other party that she or he should automatically pay alimony to the other. The court must look at the practicality of such. The reality is that just because there is a disparity in income does not necessarily mean that one party is in need or the other has the ability to make both houses equal financially. Financial equality sustained by one income for two households runs quite a risk for the paying party because often, that individual also takes more of the debts from the marriage. In a recent appellate opinion, Walker v. Walker, 1D11-2869 (Fla. 1st DCA April 12, 2012). , the court quoted the following, “Simple disparity in income will not support an award of permanent periodic alimony: ‘the purpose of permanent periodic alimony is not to divide future income to establish financial equality.’ See Rosen v. Springer, 845 So.2d 927, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(citing Segall v. Segall, 708 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Langevin v. Langevin, 698 So.2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Wright v. Wright, 613 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).” This basically establishes that alimony should be awarded to assist the needing party in the future, not just to establish an equal financial footing of both spouses.
In addition, Fernandes v. Dernandes, 5D10-3741 (Fla. 5th DCA April 20, 2012). Addressed the idea of alimony not having to be paid to keep the parties or a party in the same lifestyle as was created during the marriage, the reason being that there is an impossibility in making two households equal to that standard of one household. The appellate court stated, “…indeed, it is the exceptional case when a couple’s resources and earnings prove sufficient to maintain two independent households in the same manner as the original household. Clearly the husband cannot be required to maintain the wife’s stand of living when this maintenance stretches beyond his financial capacity.” Id.
The reality is that there are things that may come up after the divorce that leads to the need for additional alimony, but the courts have stated that providing for alimony allows for future modifications and those factors can be addressed later. The courts do not intend to have one spouse be financially ruined due to a requirement to pay alimony. However, the courts also do not want to punish the lesser earning spouse to a point that she or he is in financial ruin. Florida alimony determinations are a difficult balance of finances because the parties are, in essence, creating two separate lives. The balance is ultimately based on one party’s needs and the other’s ability to pay. Awarding alimony over what the paying party can afford defeats the ultimate ideas of alimony. The concept is to keep the parties as equal as possible, but not to a level that is financially burdensome. It’s a hard balance that the trial courts face, but until the Florida legislature determines an overall calculation, the balance will remain for the appellate courts to continuously tighten down.