Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
A rehabilitative alimony award requires a specific and defined rehabilitative plan to be stated in an order. Such a plan is aimed at “(1) [t]he redevelopment of previous skills or credentials; or (2) [t]he acquisition of education, training, or work experience necessary to develop appropriate employment skills or credentials.” § 61.08(6)(a)(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2023). The law requires that an order for this type of alimony address “the objective of rehabilitation, the costs of the plan, and the projected period necessary for [completion][.]” Allison v. Allison, 692 So. 2d 1013, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This was an issue in the case Smith v. Chevillet, 4D2023-2589 (Fla. 4th DCA January 8, 2025).
In this divorce case, the former husband appealed multiple issues related to alimony. First, the former husband argued the trial court failed to indicate a specific rehabilitative alimony plan for the former wife. He also argued the trial court improperly awarded spousal support based on an informal discussion that occurred between counsel and the court at the end of the trial. Last, the former husband argued the trial court erred when it failed to include living expenses ordered to be paid for the former wife (mortgage, etc.) as alimony to the former wife in the child support calculation.
Discussing the issue of a specific rehabilitative plan, the appellate court agreed the plan was lacking detail. It held “A review of the hearing transcript reveals only a discussion between the court and counsel at the end of the trial; it does not contain substantial competent evidence to support the court’s rehabilitative alimony award. And the former wife failed to provide a “specific and defined rehabilitative plan.” This requires us to reverse the alimony award and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Turning to the former husband’s contention that the trial court improperly relied on a discussion between counsel and the court to award alimony to the former wife, the appellate court also agreed, holding “While section 61.08 requires specific factual findings regarding the factors listed in subsection (2), an exception exists where the parties have entered into a valid agreement regarding spousal support on the record. Chovan v. Chovan, 90 So. 3d 898, 901 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Here, the issue was discussed near the end of the trial, but both parties did not clearly and unequivocally assent to a spousal support agreement on the record. The former husband’s counsel agreed to the trial court’s spousal support proposal to pay the mortgage for four years and then quitclaim the deed to the former wife. However, neither the former husband nor the former wife clearly accepted the trial court’s proposal. Rather, the former wife’s counsel expressed concern about the feasibility of the arrangement.”
On this issue, the court concluded “An enforceable oral marital settlement agreement requires clear and unequivocal assent from both parties on the record. Chovan, 90 So. 3d at 902. Here, neither the former wife, her counsel, nor the former husband provided such assent. Without mutual assent, no binding agreement excepted the statutory requirement of specific factual findings under section 61.08. Further, the details of any purported agreement are also absent from the discussion. For these reasons, the spousal support award is reversed and the case remanded for a trial court determination based on the evidence and not on an informal discussion.”
Finally, addressing the former husband’s contention that the trial court erred by not including as alimony the direct expenses he was ordered to pay for the former wife in the child support guidelines, the appellate court agreed with him. It held “Here, the trial court erred in calculating the parties’ incomes for child support purposes under section 61.30. The trial court ordered the former husband to pay over $8,000 per month to the former wife for the mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, and other household expenses, expressly characterizing these payments as ‘spousal support.’ But in determining child support, the trial court attributed only $2,000 per month as net monthly income to the former wife, reflecting only the rehabilitative alimony award. The trial court also failed to deduct the $8,000+ monthly spousal support obligation from the former husband’s gross income in calculating his net income, instead relying on his October 2020 financial affidavit. These omissions violated the statutory requirements of sections 61.30(2)(a)9 and 61.30(3)(g) for child support determinations. We therefore reverse the child support determination and remand the case for a recalculation of the parties’ incomes and an appropriate child support award.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.