Florida Statute 61.14(1)(b), sometimes referred to as “the cohabitation statute,” states that b(1)
[t]he court may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings by the court that since the granting of a divorce and the award of alimony a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides. On the issue of whether alimony should be reduced or terminated under this paragraph, the burden is on the obligor to prove by a preponderence of the evidence that a supportive relationship exists. (2) In determining whether an existing award of alimony should be reduced or terminated because of an alleged supportive relationship between an obligee and a person who is not related by consanguinity or affinity and with whom the obligee resides, the court shall elicit the nature and extent of the relationship in question….

The Second District Court of Appeals recently explained that to determine whether a supportive relationship exists, the circuit court must employ an analysis of four steps: First, the circuit court must elicit the nature and extent of the relationship in question. Second, the court must determine whether the facts establish a supportive relationship. Third, if a supportive relationship is found to exist, the court must consider the relevant economic factors for determining an award of separate maintenance or alimony outlined in section 61.08(2). Fourth, after evaluating all relevant economic factors, the court must must decide whether to reduce or terminate the alimony obligation.

If a payor is able to prove that the recipient of alimony is in a supportive relationship, the court may reduce or terminate any alimony order currently in place. These are important factors to consider when deciding whether to attempt to modify any previous alimony orders in your case.
See King v. King, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D552.

Patricia Dills is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice
focuses in Divorce, Child Support, Family Law, and Civil Litigation. She
primarily practices in Naples, Collier County, and Fort Myers, Lee County Florida.

Many family law cases are able to be resolved at mediation, which keeps the parties from having to go before a judge to further litigate their case. Mediation is a beneficial way to work out parenting plans, child support, and even alimony arrangements between parents.

Mediated agreements can be as detailed as the parties choose for them to be. Some spouses prefer this option, so that if they other party does not comply, there is a clear course to enforce the agreement. Either party may file for contempt with the court, and the non-complying party will be forced to either comply with the agreement, or show the court why they are unable to do so.

When the court finds that one party is able to comply, but is willfully choosing not to do so, the court may find that party in contempt. At that point, it is up to each individual court to decide what sanctions to impose. Many times this may be a payment, or a “purge” amount to bring the non-compliance current, or it may be other sanctions that the court finds are proper to award the other spouse.

It is important to note that even attorney’s fees may be awarded to the spouse who files for contempt if the court finds that the non-complying party is actually in contempt. It is usually best to try to communicate and work out any differences prior to taking court action. Even if this is unsuccessful, the court will at least be impressed to know that you did try to work out the problem prior to coming into the courtroom.

See Norberg v. Norberg, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D415.

Patricia Dills is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice
focuses in Divorce, Child Support, Family Law, and Civil Litigation. She
primarily practices in Naples, Collier County, and Fort Myers, Lee County Florida.

In an opinion filed September 22, 2011, a Florida District Court of Appeal ruled that a trial court improperly ordered deductions from an Appellant’s income for a portion of an arrearage that does not represent family support or related attorney’s fees.

During the pendency of the dissolution of marriage action, the Appellant liquidated his children’s pre-paid college accounts, which the trial court had ordered not to be liquidated. When the Appellant failed to place the funds in a trust pending a final determination of the funds’ marital status as ordered by the court, the trial court directed that $300 per month be deducted from his income until an arrearage of $24,308.59 had been satisfied. This amount included the above mentioned liquidation amount, along with other support arrearages.

The Appeals Court held that the pre-paid college accounts are not part of Appellant’s support obligation, and even though the Appellant was obligated to comply with the court’s order to place the funds in trust pending the final determination of their marital status, this obligation may not be enforced through an income deduction order. The Court stated:

Section 61.1301(1)(b)1 establishes the purposes for which an income deduction order may be used. This statute is in derogation of common law and, thus, must be strictly construed. Spalding v. Spalding, 813 S0. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). It authorizes the use of an income deduction order to “[d]irect a payor to deduct from all income due and payable to an obligor the amount required by the court to meet the obligor’s support obligation including any attorney’s fees or costs owed and forward the deducted amount pursuant to the order.”

See Achurra v. Esperanza Achurra, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2104.

Patricia Dills is an Attorney with Martin Law Firm, P.L., whose practice
focuses in Divorce, Child Support, Family Law, and Civil Litigation. She
primarily practices in Naples, Collier County, and Fort Myers, Lee County Florida.