Permanent alimony is long-term alimony payments that have no defined end date, except for remarriage of the recipient or the death of the ex-spouse receiving the payments. That definition is evolving, said Barry Finkel, a Fort Lauderdale family law attorney. In many cases, divorced spouses assume they will be awarded permanent alimony.

The move is designed to encourage an ex-spouse receiving alimony after a divorce to re-enter the workforce or find gainful, supportive employment, so the paying spouse is not obligated to indefinitely continue paying alimony. This will change how generations have come to view alimony.

The trend encourages what some call “individual responsibility.” In 2010, the Florida Legislature clarified its statutes to provide additional guidance to the Court. Supporters reasoned that while several factors are considered when making awards of alimony, the responsibility regarding minor children should be shared between the parties. Therefore, although a spouse may forego a career to keep the household and raise the children, the dissolution of that marriage, especially before a certain timeframe, does not remove that spouse’s financial responsibility to help support children.

The intent of the alimony changes seems to be to increase individual responsibility and reduce the presumption of permanent alimony.

To assist the court, Florida codified three types of marriages: Short term of less than seven years; Durational of between seven and 17 years; and Long Term, which lasts more than 17 years.

Guidance regarding alimony options for each type of marriage was also provided. The state now recognizes specific types of alimony, such as “bridge the gap,” or payments that last up to two years after the divorce; rehabilitative alimony- designed to assist an ex-spouse in entering the workforce; and durational alimony not to exceed the number of years (between seven and 17) that a marriage lasted. As a result, permanent alimony is now generally only considered for ex-spouses of long-term marriages.

The debate over permanent alimony is a reflection of changes in the workplace. Some 40 years ago, it was more difficult for women to find employment in the upper levels of the workforce. Alimony laws were designed to protect women who relied upon the husband as the union’s sole provider.

Some argue that limiting permanent alimony unreasonably requires a spouse to return to the workforce. Those divorcing from “durational” marriages generally are younger, probably better career-prepared, and better able to find a suitable career. The spouse is required to present to the courts or magistrate a plan to return to the workforce. In that case, the courts might offer durational or rehabilitative alimony to cover costs of living while the spouse seeks the degree or certifications needed to obtain employment.

Those coming off long-term marriages may be at an age when returning to the workforce is not realistic. Permanent alimony still may be possible, but the legislature and courts might expect more effort from the ex-spouse to provide for herself and the children.

No matter how permanent alimony changes for couples facing divorce, those entering marriage – especially for the second or third time – should consider the importance of the pre-nuptial agreement. Regardless of changes made by state leaders, pre-nuptials can limit the potential long-term impact of what otherwise could be court-ordered permanent alimony.

In Broward County Courts, the same set of facts in front of two different judges could yield two dramatically different results. Because of this, it is difficult to advise clients as to what they may be entitled to under Florida law.

One judge may say, “Maintain the status quo,” and order one spouse to pay the other for “living” expenses, including the mortgage, taxes, insurance and utilities, for example. This could include food, but what about entertainment or other “lifestyle” costs?

If only guidelines existed to determine what the breadwinning spouse would have to pay – and what the other may expect to receive…

The New York Times recently ran an op-ed piece entitled “Ending the Alimony Guessing Game.” In it, the writer discussed family law reforms in New York State, including how the state had “become one of the few states to adopt a formula for setting certain alimony awards, making them fairer and predictable.”

Fair and predictable – there’s a concept family law and divorce attorneys can rally around.

The article noted how “former spouses pay around $9 billion in alimony each year,” according to the IRS. The article went on to say that family court judges use a list of sensible criteria to determine amounts and schedules, “including the length of the marriage, the ages and health of the spouses, their financial situations, their earning potential and their contributions to the marriage, financial and otherwise.”

Yet nationwide, judges have wide discretion in determining dollar figures and the value either party brought to the marriage. A survey of Ohio judges put the alimony for a lifelong homemaker married to a doctor at between $5,000 and $175,000 a year.

We believe the establishment of numerical guidelines for temporary support is a sound idea. Guidelines aid in planning by both parties by removing much of the guesswork and crystal-ball scenarios.

If you delineate or determine alimony “guidelines” that judges or magistrates are obliged to follow, the figures are relatively cut and dried. They provide a baseline, a starting point both parties can anticipate and from which they can move forward. They remove the general unpredictability that can occur depending on which judge draws a divorce case.

Guidelines can aid negotiations and even reduce the need for litigation, potentially removing cases from the court docket as less is left to negotiate. Emotions are less frayed. Fruitless marriages end sooner and with less litigious acrimony.

Guidelines are not without drawbacks. Some cases don’t easily “fit” within any guidelines because of the special needs or extenuating circumstances involving on party or a child. Additionally, in the case of a spouse who hides income or can decrease income because he or she owns a business and can increase liabilities or take less money, guidelines may not work. A hearing, backed by financial discovery and disclosure, may be required.

Guidelines can work – for couples, families, counsel and courts.

Editorial Note: We’ll discuss the tax implications of guidelines, especially as they relate to alimony versus undifferentiated family support – and child support – in a future blog.

Then, the potential complexities grew much deeper.

Putting aside the implications for Arnold’s and Maria’s young children (coping and recovery certainly will be tough for their kids), issues raised from this news include tricky paternity matters, including Arnold’s duty to support the child.

This includes how to establish true “paternity” – especially if the mother was married when she had the child, and if any husband (none the wiser regarding the child’s true lineage) treated the boy as his own. Much of this is unknown. As such, we’re speculating on a hypothetical situation.

The issue of “presumption of legitimacy” of a child of the marriage weighs large in most paternity cases.

We are not licensed to practice law in California, so we’ll use the family’s example as if the case were to be tried under Florida jurisdiction and law. Regarding Arnold’s duty to support, under Florida law, this falls to the presumed father of a child. Even if the husband is not the father (and had no reason to suspect he wasn’t), the presumption is that the child is the legitimate offspring of the husband. To that end, most courts would not disestablish paternity – essentially making the child a bastard in the legal sense. If the husband played the role of father emotionally and financially during the child’s life, courts generally will not strip him of that designation.

Given Arnold’s acknowledgment, though, under Florida law, the boy would expect every right and privilege as a child of a high-wage earner.

The father of this young child would have the duty and obligation to pay child support.  To be sure, if Arnold is determined to be the legal father, then the child support obligations would be steep.  He’d be expected to cover most of the child’s expenses including medical and dental expenses and extra-curricular activities.  He might also be expected to pay for private school tuition and related expenses such as books, uniforms, and any other ancillary costs.

These duties and obligations would remain until the boy turns 18 year of age, or if he has not completed high school by his 18th birthday, until he graduates or by the age 19.

The issue of children born as a result of extramarital affairs creates complicated situations.  Each case is different.  While it is interesting to wonder why celebrities, athletes, and politicians often find themselves in these situations, the truth is, they’re real people.  Their lives are made potentially more complex because they’re surrounded by sycophants and “yes women” who won’t ‘just say no.’

They’re often perceived as being above the law, and above the issues of morality.  Yet, Arnold’s tale proves otherwise.

Still, the story of Arnold Schwarzenegger, his mistress and their child is not unique.  As family law practitioners, we frequently see similar cases.  The takeaway: this situation is not unique.  The case of Arnold and Maria is just very public – and provides us a case study in how surrounding issues can play out in the court of law, if not the court of public opinion.

We believe readers need a little more insight regarding the realities of the “simplified divorce,” especially as the number of such divorces rises – almost doubling in Palm Beach County and up 20 percent in Broward County, the article notes. Overall, these make up about one in 10 divorce cases in the two counties, the paper reported.

A “simplified divorce” is a legal definition relating to a couple with no home and no children. They have nothing in common other than a marriage they want to dissolve. They might not even have joint banking accounts. It can be the simplest form of divorce. Add children or assets, and complexity grows in kind.

For these couples, Broward County Courts (and many courts) offer a “Dissolution of Marriage Packet.” In Fort Lauderdale, the packet costs $30 and includes all the forms you may need to file for divorce (the firms also are available from the Florida Supreme Court, though they can be difficult to find online).

The $30 fee also covers enrollment in a class, led by experienced family law attorneys, to help couples fill out the forms correctly. Fill out the forms wrong and the judge may send you back to do them correctly.

The article discussed the role of family law mediators. In an effort to reduce the burden on the courts, many jurisdictions require couples seeking divorce to first try mediation before going to court. At a cost of $60 per session for each party (for couples who make less than $120,000 in income), the mediator hears the case, tries to help the sides negotiate the terms, and come to an agreeable divorce. The process could take two sessions or more.

Yet, a mediator often was never a divorce attorney. He or she cannot offer advice – and cannot steer the parties away from a bad choice. For example, a woman gave up her career or schooling 20 years ago to become a housewife and raise the children may agree to forego alimony and get a job. No divorce attorney representing her would advise terms that would leave her below the poverty line.

The next step up is a Supreme Court Certified mediator. This person generally was or is a family law attorney. The cost is higher than a non-certified mediator – often $250 an hour or more. If this mediation fails, the next step is a trial before a judge.

Another option is “collaborative divorce.” In this process, each party hires its own attorney, request disclosure of documents from the other party, and then seeks to come to terms. If this fails, the parties then must fire their existing counsel and hire new attorneys. The process of bringing a new attorney up to speed raises the costs with any failure. Yet if the couples are committed to the intent of collaborative divorce, it could work.

Generally speaking, we advise against a “do it yourself” divorce. Parties seeking this route, especially if they have children or assets, often will turn to friends or family for advice. They don’t know their rights or responsibilities. They don’t know what constitutes a “fair” settlement, in terms of finances or timesharing / child custody.

They don’t know the chance of looking back, in a few years time, wondering if their “simple” divorce ended up making their lives complex.

Another example of Big Brother’s incessant invasion of privacy via iPhones and Android, they protested.

Yet, what about couples in divorce? For divorce lawyers and family law attorneys, the implications are less dramatic.

The truth is, the ability to track your spouse (even with the apparent simplicity provided with an app to do that) is generally meaningless in the divorce court. We advise our clients to be more concerned about what they write in texts, on Facebook and other social media than where they travel with their iPhones.

Sure, it’s compelling drama for one spouse in a divorce case to imagine getting a subpoena for the other spouse’s iPhone location records to see if the spouse was where he/she said he/she claimed to be at such-and-so time.

It’s interesting. Scary, even.

But it’s not likely to make much of a difference. Like some other technologies, it’s impractical – and generally unusable – in a divorce action. Judges generally don’t care to get involved with spousal whereabouts, unless one side claims the other is dissipating (spending) joint assets on an affair.

In sum, this is much more difficult than helpful in a marital law situation.

Our advice: Don’t worry about where your iPhone may travel; beware, though, texting or posting to Facebook about those travels.

“The first-time event was designed to make what can be a painful event as painless as possible — that meant free parking included and, for many if not most, no missing work — and to close a lot of cases, about 400,” the Sun-Sentinel reported (Read the article here).

Many parties can and often do agree on the equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, and even timesharing (custody) of the minor children. At our firm, we have assisted several families in obtaining their “no-fuss,” easy divorce, at little cost to them.

Divorces don’t have to cost thousands of dollars. Parties need to agree on the big stuff, and agree to put the children first, or their financial well-being first, when deciding to divorce. Parties who can successfully remember to put themselves and their children first, will succeed in obtaining a low-cost divorce.

We have done a number of quick divorces where one party comes to us with an agreement already determined by the parties. We type it up, advise our client of his or her rights and responsibilities, and take that person to the final hearing. Often, such a divorce can be obtained in three months with no fighting, no drama, and minimal legal fees.

We often offer a reduced retainer when a client comes to us with a settlement. We still have to comply with the statutes and file petitions, answers, and financial affidavits. But that is part of our low-cost service – and low-drama divorce for the client.

Yet, experts continue to offer advice and counsel. The Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio yesterday devoted an hour to the topic. The segment, entitled “Starting Over After Late-Life Divorce,” included interviews with Andrew Cherlin, a Professor of Sociology and Public Policy at Johns Hopkins University and author of “The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family Today”; Janice Green, a family law practitioner in Austin, Texas, and author of the book, “Divorce After 50: Your Guide to the Unique Legal and Financial Challenges”; and Abigail Trafford, a journalist, columnist, and former health editor at “The Washington Post” and author of “Crazy Time” and “My Time.”

The piece focused on how “many long-term married couples are making the decision to go their separate ways — possibly for another two or three decades.” The hour explored “the unique challenges and opportunities of late-life divorce.”

The lesson: As people live longer, late-stage divorce should not be such a surprise — and often comes with less acrimony. But planning remains important to ensuring everyone’s rights are protected.

According to a new book and its review on MSN, “Whether you are happily married now, or hoping to be one day, there’s one topic you’d probably rather not think about: divorce. Yet, most of us know at least one wedded couple who has split up. And then there’s that ominous 50 percent statistic, which often scares us into believing that a marriage’s survival is as subject to chance as whether a coin will flip heads or tails.”

The MSN writer spoke with licensed marriage and family therapist Shannon Fox and divorce attorney Celeste Liversidge, who authored the book Last One Down the Aisle Wins: 10 Keys to a Fabulous Single Life Now and an Even Better Marriage Later. In the story, they offer guidance on the seven worst deeds a divorcing couple can commit…

Read the entire article here.

They seemed like the model couple. They’d lived a life together that many married (and, honestly, divorced) people seemingly can only dream of. Of course, they’d had tragedy and illness. But they have money. They raised their children. They enjoyed politics at the highest echelon of the American system. They were ready to coast into their Golden Years – together.

Al & Tipper Gore in happier times.

The Wall Street Journal wrote how the Gores “have spent virtually their entire adult lives in the public eye and they have done it together. They presented themselves as a package,” the Speakeasy columnist wrote, “and the idea of their brand was sealed with a public kiss on the stage of the Democratic Convention in 2000.”

Then, in a not-too-uncommon and increasingly modern occurrence, they split.

Marriage therapists who work with older couples aren’t as surprised as the rest of us seem to be. We’re living longer. Many have the security of dual-income economics to now enjoy life apart. And desires that were stifled in deference to the family unit are more easily pursued and fulfilled once the nest has emptied. Therapists told the Journal, “…they’re less willing to spend their last decades with someone who leaves them unfulfilled. At the same time, working wives are less dependent on husbands for financial support, and husbands have Viagra and other new incentives to find other romances.”

Call it “the New Biology” – and the New Economics. Nothing has gone wrong. People are more robust in their later years, and they have just grown apart. People in their 50s, 60s, even their 70s are unwilling to go without – whether “without” means sexually, being personally fulfilled, or enjoying a more active lifestyle.

We’re seeing this in our family law practice, too. The most common warning signs are:

- Increasingly frequent disagreements. Not knock-down, drag-out arguments. They might even be amicable. It’s just that things are seen differently.

- One or both are miserable in the marriage. Satisfaction is gone. As needs change, so, too, do the dynamics of the relationship.

- Sex is unfulfilling – if it’s there at all.

- Free time might be spent with friends – or just in different rooms of the house.

For late-stage couples, equitable distribution of assets presents its own unique issues. Significant tax consequences may be involved. With the Gores, Al is earning income from book royalties and speaking fees. Tipper can expect to split those proceeds. While the source may be different, actively-employed, high net worth couples may have similar financial issues. Assets, property and income will need to be equitably divided.

Many family law attorneys attempt to treat late-stage marriage like a “normal” divorce. The non-working spouse may claim permanent alimony. Asset distribution – and the tax implications – may be more dramatic for both. This could require the involvement of a financial planner or tax advisor skilled in such cases.

Though the dollars may be less, even middle-income couples have concerns. Assets, retirement plans or pensions must be divided. Real estate has to be sold – or equitably shared. Credit card debt has to be addressed. And with earning capacity gone from those already in retirement, you’ll now be providing for two households.

The goal – for high net worth or middle income families – is to minimize the tax implications before getting on with your new life.

Watch and listen as family law attorney Barry Finkel discusses divorce and taxes with a local television news host.