Florida Permanent Alimony – Permanent. – Really?

I'm not the first to be outraged, and not likely to be the last. The courts continue to award permanent alimony, almost always in favor of the former wife. Theoretically, a former husband could be awarded alimony, but I am having a hard time locating any of those cases. Until recently, I was under the impression that alimony was an archaic system that was rarely used in our enlightened modern times. It turns out that it is an archaic system, still alive and well in 2012 Florida. In fact, it amazes me that women would even want permanent alimony, after fighting so hard for equality.

The good news is that women are no longer considered chattel. Chattel, derived from old French, for (you guessed it!) – cattle. Chattel means property. In colonial times, women had few rights of their own. Their rights varied from state to state, with some of the New England states the most progressive. Up until women won the right to vote, many of the following laws remained in full force and effect:

Women were denied a separate legal status from their husbands.

A husband and wife were considered one person under the law and that one person was the husband.

Women were denied rights of inheritance.

Women were denied the right to own property in their own right.

Men could be compensated for the loss of a wife due to another man's negligence.

Men paid a bride price to the parents of his wife in the same way he purchased livestock.

Even after women won the right to vote, it still took some time to get past some of the customs and mind-sets surrounding women, and women owning property. Thankfully and formally, the doctrine of necessaries, and coverture have long been laid to rest. The doctrine of necessaries held that husbands were responsible for their wife's debts. The idea that a husband was responsible to third parties for the debts of his wife, was abolished in many states, including Florida, based on equal protection grounds. Some states have made both parties in a marriage responsible for the debts of the other spouse and so there is no burden on the husband – the rule is gender neutral.

Coverture was at common law the idea that a woman's identity was merged with her husband. She could not own property; enter into contracts; or establish her own credit. Coverture created the need for the doctrine of necessaries because a married woman was dependent upon her husband for maintenance and support. These systems sound so very ancient to us now. But they are not as ancient as you might think and the vestiges remain. Florida Constitution Article 10, Section V - states:

“There shall be no distinction between married women and married men in the holding, control, disposition, or encumbering of their property, both real and personal; except that dower or curtesy may be established and regulated by law.”

The Florida legislature abolished dower and curtesy with – Florida Statute – 732.111 —Dower and curtesy are abolished.

The terms Dower and Curtesy refer to provisions under the English common law and early American statutes granting widows and widowers special inheritance rights in the separate property owned by their deceased spouses. In addition, married women suffered severe burdens and limitations in dealing with their separate property. The significance of these doctrines at present is only part of the historical background of marital property rights.

Florida Statutes Sections 732.201-215, provide the surviving spouse of a person dying domiciled in Florida on or after October 1, 1973, with the right to a share of the decedent's estate, equal to 30% of the net fair market value on the date of death of all Florida Real Property which is subject to administration. Such right is known as the "Elective Share", and replaces all former spousal claims in the nature of dower and curtesy.

Curtesy - An estate to which a man is entitled by common-law right on the death of his wife, in all the lands that his wife owned at any time during their marriage, provided a child is born of the marriage who could inherit the land.

Alimony, particularly permanent alimony is a throw back to old customs. Admittedly, traditions die hard. Despite great strides, women have not yet achieved economic equality to men. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) –

“In 2010, women who were full time wage and salary workers had median weekly earnings of $669. Women earned 81% of the weekly earnings of their male counterparts - $824. In 1979, the first year for which comparable earnings data are available, women earned 62% of what men earned. The women-to-men's earnings ratio has been in the 80-81% range since 2004.”

I can see certain situations where alimony is appropriate. If either the husband or the wife stayed home for years raising children, and needs time to re-enter the job market – fair enough. Temporary, or rehabilitative alimony are available for these situations. I can even imagine certain situations when permanent alimony is appropriate. If one of the parties stayed home their entire married life to raise children; or if that party not only stayed home to raise children, but is also disabled; or did not stay home the entire time, but only half of the marriage, but spent the working time putting the other party through school and paying all the bills, then ok.

But when you hear the stories of the men in nursing homes having their social security checks garnished for alimony – come on. I have to wonder what became of that former wife's self respect, not to mention her humanity, that she would accept those alimony payments. And I also have to wonder how collecting permanent alimony can help a woman ever achieve economic equality. Fair is fair.

Guest Blog - The Legal Kidnapping of An Elderly Woman

This is about my Aunt Ida Marie Pavioni.

From the time that I was born, she was an integral part of my life. She was a Mother to me all of my life. Prior to her moving to Bradenton, Fla. in 2008, to live with me, she lived on her own in St. Louis, Missouri. She was employed with South Western Bell Telephone Company in St Louis Mo, for 59 years and was totally independent. She was a faithful servant to her Catholic faith and lived a totally independent life, all of her life.
Now, I desperately need help and justice for My Aunt! In April 2010, she was involuntarily removed from her home by Florida State authorities. Her freedom was taken from her through lies and misinformation by greedy family members and outside influencers. I was not allowed to see her during her incarceration until I agreed to give up the inheritance that my Aunt had made for me. Due to my own circumstances, I live on Social Security only; I had no money to even hire a lawyer to try to have my Aunt freed. There is a case that has been submitted to the Supreme Court for hearing that involves ALL of the individuals who were a party to my Aunt’s incarceration
A petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 7, 2011, by Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., Professor of International Law and Genocide Studies at Valparaiso University School of Law, on behalf of Beverly R. Newman and Lawrence T. Newman. Named in the petition are: Paul E. Logan and Jannette Dunning, judges for the Circuit Court of Manatee County, Florida; the Public Guardian for Manatee County doing business as Aging Safely, Inc., its CEO Jo Eisch, director Ashley Butler, and attorneys James Knowles and Erika Dine; professional guardian Herbert Schimmel and his lawyer Edwin Boyer; and Gerald O’Brien, former counsel for the petitioner.

Why is this petition important? Because it questions the legality of the Florida guardianship program under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. According to the petition:

One question presented: Whether State guardianship and civil commitment proceedings that significantly diminish protected liberty and property interests of an incapacitated person violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, (1) where a State Judge and Public Guardian fail to provide adequate notice of the guardianship and civil commitment proceedings to family members who are willing and responsible caregivers of the incapacitated person, and (2) where the proceedings violate procedural safeguards for full and fair hearing by failure of court-appointed council to provide meaningful legal representation of the ward of the State throughout these proceedings, and by judicial exclusion of competent family members from meaningful participation in guardianship and civil commitment proceeding.

 She went from a vibrant woman, of 86, who was enjoying her life and retirement to the shell of a woman that she is now. Like Mr. Katz, my Aunt was denied her 14th Amendment Rights by the State of Florida. She demanded to be allowed to hire her own attorney before her Competency hearing in May and the authorities refused her request. Her State Appointed Attorney made sure that her wishes to remain free to live on her own were thwarted.

This should never happen to anyone in America. Our elderly are truly vulnerable in this country when practices like this by the State are allowed to be carried out against their citizens. I need someone to help me tell my Aunt’s story and secure some form of justice for her. She does not deserve to have to live in a drugged up state for whatever time she has left in her life. I want her story to be known so that others may know that without proper safeguards being in place in their lives makes them vulnerable to what has happened to Mr. Katz and my Aunt. The system of Elder Services is severely broken in Manatee County, Florida. This can happen to anyone and it will happen again. Ida Pavioni deserves justice at this point and I am looking for anyone out there who will help me pursue it. If you know of any other cases like this in Florida or have suggestions as how to proceed with any of this I may be contacted at the number below. Please help, the system is not operating in Florida at this time in a fair or just manner for our seniors.

Janice Fendel, Bradenton, Florida (updated 1/27/2019 to delete photos)