Two Mysteries of Florida Family Law Rules

In the course of doing business as a legal document preparer, my customers often ask me questions about procedure and why things are the way they are. I am allowed to provide consumers information regarding procedural rules, timelines, etc.; as long as I refrain from offering legal advice. Most people that contact me do not want legal advice anyway, they just don't know how to fill out the forms. And that's why we're here. The reason for this entire industry is that consumers either don't know how to prepare their own documents, don't have the time, or cannot possibly afford an attorney. A large part of the documents I prepare are family law documents, such as divorces, and supplemental petitions for modification of existing orders.

Mystery Number One:

If a couple is divorcing, they have no children, and they have already split all their assets, why does the State of Florida require a family law financial affidavit?

This is a basic divorce scenario where both parties want to go their separate ways, and have no disputes over anything. In the past couple of years, the requirement for a financial affidavit in a Simplified Dissolution of Marriage (which has never been so simple in my opinion - and I rarely have a request for these forms) changed so that divorcing couples using the simplified process can waive the financial affidavit requirement. However, the huge drawback for couples using the simplified process is that they both must appear in court. And, although, they may not have any disputes over property or children, they still may not want to be in the same room together ever again, and they may not be sure that the other party is going to be completely reliable, and if the other party doesn't show up, then there will be no divorce. And they will very likely have to pay another filing fee to get the divorce completed. So, many couples who qualify for the simplified process, use a petition for dissolution with no children and no property instead. That way, the more motivated party, can make sure he or she is the petitioner, and make sure that the divorce is completed, and the marriage is done and over, regardless of whether the other party cooperates or not. But, these couples are required to file a financial affidavit. Why? Customers ask me all the time. And my only answer is that the State of Florida says so, and beyond that I have no idea.

I recently helped a customer whose ex-husband to be lives in another country. No children, no assets, no debt. She sent him the divorce petition and an answer and waiver of appearance for him to sign. Which he did. But, when she tried to schedule a hearing, the clerk of court refused to schedule it because her husband had not filed a financial affidavit. And then the clerk of court directed her to file a motion to compel him to file a financial affidavit. Since he is in another country how can the State of Florida compel him to do anything? Sounds like a legal question, and I have no idea what the answer is. The bigger question is the central mystery here. Why is it the business of the State of Florida to know the financial information of a consumer, just because they are going through a divorce? If you know the answer, please comment.

Mystery Number Two:

This second mystery is much worse. Frequently, when unwed parents part company the mother (usually) files for child support through the Florida Department of Revenue. The father receives a notice in the mail that he must appear for the child support hearing and to bring all his pay stubs and proof of income. Many fathers are happy to go because they think that they can also request child visitation (timesharing) at the same hearing. Au contraire mon frere! However, most of the time these hearings are held before a General Magistrate, not a Judge. A General Magistrate also called a Hearing Officer is usually an attorney appointed by the Chief Judge to hear uncontested family law matters. So when the parties go in front of the General Magistrate, the court's assumption is that there is no dispute. The father owes child support, and that's the end of it. The General Magistrate is not allowed to hear any disputes, not allowed to hear anything related to child visitation, and the fathers come out of those hearings with their heads reeling. When the father tries to bring up child visitation or custody, the General Magistrate refuses to hear it. Most often the General Magistrate does not explain to the father why he can't hear it (because he's not allowed to); and doesn't tell the father what he can do to make sure that he has the legal right to see his own children and not be treated like an ATM.

Why does the State of Florida persist in allowing the fathers to be treated this way? If you know the answer as to the why, please comment.

There is a solution, however, and I truly hope this is helpful to someone. If you are caught in the situation described above: File a Petition to Determine Paternity and Related Relief; and a proposed Parenting Plan. The outcome will be an order naming you as the legal father, with the legal right to spend time with your children. The Parenting Plan is the schedule of visitation.

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.