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.

Increasingly, family law attorneys are advising their clients to turn to “cohabitation agreements” or “non-marital cohabitation agreements” to help keep assets and possessions with their rightful owners. Akin to a prenuptial agreement, these are different by their very name and nature: Cohabitation agreements are for those who choose not to marry.

For a growing number of Americans, this is an important development. The number of cohabiting unmarried partners increased tenfold between 1960 and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau); it grew by 88% between 1990 and 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau), notes advocacy site, Unmarried.org.

Whether for heterosexual or homosexual couples, cohabitation agreements are intended to provide a smoother transition should the couple decides to split. The document can protect the couple from the cost and potential litigation by “clearly regulat[ing] their property rights and what arrangements might be made for mutual financial support, dealing with debt, caring for children, etc.,” according to Wikipedia.

Click here to watch a video and learn more about Cohabitation Agreements.

Actor Kelsey Grammer

Many family law or divorce attorneys strongly suggest a pre-nup for wealthy clients – especially those who wed later in life or to those much younger than themselves, or who have a history of failed marriages. Pre-nups protect the assets of both parties as they enter the marriage, and help ensure that property and support issues will be predetermined should the parties split, helping to avoid an expense and an acrimonious divorce.

Mr. Grammer, an actor who also owns a production company with wife, Camille, offered her $30 million. The offer was to be inclusive of alimony and child support for the couple’s children, ages 6 and 9. She rebuffed his offer and countered with at $50 million. Meanwhile, the divorce has grown acrimonious and very public.

Is Mr. Grammer, who was married to Camille for 14 years, setting himself up for a similar outcome? He reportedly has said it would be an “insult” to request a pre-nup from Ms. Walsh. Time will tell.

The Woods-Nordegren case has been made even more difficult because of the sensational nature of Woods’ numerous affairs.

But those things that made his case sensational also highlight the steps often needed to reconcile. For her part, Elin hired a high-power family law attorney – if only to prove the seriousness of her intentions or improve her negotiation position. To the outside observer, this move may have revealed the seriousness of her intentions – and scared him straight.

While statistics are hard to come by, reconciliation – even after one party cheats on the other, or one moves out of the residence – is not uncommon. But it often starts with an overture of remorse or corrective action. In Woods’ case, he apparently acknowledged to his wife the error of his ways, and sought counseling for his “addiction.”

Moreover, one detail the public may never know is whether reconciliation in the Woods-Nordegren case was tied to modification of the couple’s prenuptial agreement. Nordegren’s hiring of a powerful divorce attorney may have been an effort to get the prenup changed to her benefit.

In Florida, divorce court is set up to encourage reconciliation. Even if one party files for divorce, the courts can abate the action for 90 days while the parties attend marital counseling in the hopes of reconciling. Some judges will order the counseling with the abatement; others simply will give the parties 90 days before moving the case along to resolution.

Also, if one party hires and attorney and pays a retainer, that money stays “on account” and the party has counsel of record. If in a year resolution is deemed impossible and things just don’t work out, that party already has counsel and will not have to pay again until the initial retainer is used up.

Woods’ situation also highlights the role of counseling programs in the reconciliation process. From drug or alcohol counseling to anger management, marital, gambling or sexual counseling, to parenting courses and other intervention, these programs often are attended by one or both parties attempting to get back on track.

Separation is not the acknowledgement of a fait accompli. Think of it as a “cooling off” period needed for both parties to consider or reconsider their positions without the volatility or pressure of the other as a constant reminder or aggravating presence. It gives both a chance to emotionally calm down, seek guidance or counseling, forgive the other – or decide whether reconciliation is the next step in the couple’s path.

Simply put: Under Florida law, which by virtue of their primary residence in the state is the laws under which the pre-nuptial agreement and any divorce likely will be applied, this could be relatively cut-and-dry, and quick to closure. Why?

Regardless of the outcome, this case brings the importance of a well-crafted pre-nuptial agreement front and center. Pre-nuptial agreements can protect the assets and rights of both parties in a marriage.

Challenging the pre-nup in Florida requires 1. There not to have been adequate financial disclosure, or, 2. Ms. Nordegren to have signed the agreement under duress. It’s not likely that the pre-nup was presented to Ms. Nordegren within days of their October 2004 wedding. Additionally, whomever Mr. Woods engaged as counsel to draft the agreement certainly would have provided sufficient disclosure to ensure the agreement couldn’t be nullified on such grounds.

Since there has been no discussion of a challenge to the pre-nuptial agreement, some have surmised that it is not in dispute.

Given that Ms. Nordegren apparently has pursued the counsel of Los Angeles divorce lawyer Sorrell Trope, it’s not likely Mr. Trope would challenge the pre-nup in California court – assuming the Golden State was found to have jurisdiction. History and precedence has shown that California courts strongly uphold existing pre-nuptial agreements.

Still, should divorce be pursued, whether any settlement meets the terms of the pre-nup is questionable. To forestall any chance that public notoriety will cost him more than what he pays is wife, Mr. Woods may decide it’s better to pay more and get closure.

Will Mr. Woods’ philandering behavior play a role in altering the terms? It depends on the language. It’s unlikely that the attorney who wrote the pre-nup would have provided that an extra-marital affair would be grounds for contesting the terms of the agreement, which would result in a greater distribution of assets to Ms. Nordegren.

How will child support be affected by the pre-nup? Not at all. In Florida, child support, parental responsibility, and time sharing cannot be determined in a pre-nuptial agreement. Rather, at the time of the divorce, the court determines the appropriate child support figure based on a guideline formula.

Quick closure to the case – whether through the couple re-uniting or seeking divorce – likely will highlight the importance of a well-crafted pre-nuptial agreement.

(30)