In Depth – A History of Alimony Reform in Florida

Robert Napper – Ayo and Iken Legal Correspondent – January 2018

Efforts to reform alimony laws in Florida has proved to be a political football that many proponents of change view as a draining, necessary, yet so far a fruitless fight.

Scrutiny, debate, political infighting, and public activism by both proponents and opponents of proposed alimony reform legislation has been intense for more than a decade, but when the dust settled through several legislative sessions, change that appeared on the horizon felt short due to opposition from Gov. Rick Scott.

Scott’s stance on alimony reform has been met with disgust among activists and lobbyists pushing for change and applauded by those seeking the status quo. It has also led to a movement that will likely forgo the time and effort it takes to get a bill through the legislature during this year’s session as many look to wait out Scott who will be leaving office in 2019 due to terms limits.

The years of battle in Florida are not surprising to veterans of similar reform movements in other states and are a drop in the bucket historically as alimony as a legal premise is as ancient and thorny issue as divorce itself as disputes over money and assets will always be one of the cornerstones of sorting out separations.

Ancient History

Historians point to the 18th Century B.C. as the first time the concept of alimony is mentioned as a legal standard to be abided. Babylonian king Hammurabai unleashed his Code of Hammurabai, a collection of 282 rules issued to govern and provide punishments for supposed wrongdoers in ancient society. They are an often violent collection of edicts that outline brutal punishments for theft, adultery, and other misdeeds.

The code also discussed the rights of men and women should a separation occur. One such passage is an example of a precursor to what would be become alimony. It deals with the practice of a woman providing a man a family dowry of money, goods, or estate as part of a marriage. Rule 137 as translated by the Yale Law School Avalon Project states, “If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children, then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children.”

Alimony became a continued standard as centuries progressed within English ecclesiastical courts, a tribunal of religious authorities that settled spiritual matter that also extended to marriage. Those courts outlawed divorce but allowed separation under which in certain cases a husband was ordered to financially support his wife. Eventually, the English parliament took over matters of divorce, a pattern that established itself in colonial North America until the creation of the United States and the judiciary.

In Florida, the evolution of alimony law is murky with its foundation rooted in English Common Law, a set of rules dating back thousands of the years, some of which remain on the books today, according to the Florida Supreme Court. In 1949, Miami Law Quarterly published a piece written by James Milton Carson which states that following the Civil War during Reconstruction the Florida passed the Laws of 1875 which dealt with garnishment issues including the timely paying of alimony by public officials. Of the law, Carson wrote: “The courts have several times held that the purpose of the enactment was to preserve to the unfortunate citizen and his family certain things necessary which enable him to earn his livelihood.” Currently, alimony is governed in Florida by statute 61.08.

A Divorce Sea-Change

Nationwide, family courts in states began taking precedent over divorce issues in the 1950s, giving rise to the specialization of family law. The history of alimony cannot be addressed without first discussing one of the major movements spurred in those courts, the concept of a “no-fault” divorce. The movement toward no-fault divorces emerged as a way for the courts to deal with divorces without establishing whether the husband or wife caused dissolution and thus punishing one or the other that caused the separation; for example proving adultery occurred.

California became the first state to enact a no-fault divorce law, the Family Act of 1969, signed by then governor and future President Ronald Reagan. It bucked the norm nationwide where states mandated that one side be proved at fault. After the law passed in California, an avalanche occurred of states enacting similar laws, with Florida passing the Dissolution of Marriage Act in 1971 making it a no-fault state.

Grassroots Outrage

Very little changed nationally when it came to alimony laws in the ensuing three decades of no-faults divorces that swept the nation, as mostly men continued to pay alimony to their ex-wives, sometimes permanently ordered to do so by the court.

The turn of the century brought change as societal norms shifted away from single-income homes to both husbands and wives working. By the mid-2000s grassroots movements began to gain traction nationally of alimony payers speaking out against court judgments draining their bank accounts with no end in sight. Efforts at changing laws were met with opposition from those concerned that mostly women would be harmed if they did not received alimony as many had given up careers to raise families.

One of the most significant figures in the alimony reform movement who would emerge is Steve Hitner, a Massachusetts alimony payer who by the mid-2000s paid his ex-wife $45,000-a-year. It led Hitner, who eventually had to file for bankruptcy, to engage in a mission to overhaul laws in that state. He launched a group and website in 2006 dubbed Massachusetts Alimony Reform and began a campaign in the media and with legislators that would end in landmark changes to laws there, including mostly doing away with the awarding of permanent alimony.

Similar groups around that time popped up, including in New Jersey, where alimony payer Thomas Leustek forms another grassroots group, New Jersey Alimony Reform – a movement that would also net reform. Floridians watched and efforts began there too.

But as Hitner attests, and as it has turned out in Florida, changing alimony laws is no easy or quick task when there is much opposition from powerful lobbyists and people’s financial livelihoods are at stake.

“It took me eight years to change the law,” Hitner said in an interview with me. “You have to start from the bottom and work your way up.”

It takes groundwork that is grueling and often hinges on the ability to generate media coverage that grabs the attention of lawmakers. Hitner started by collected alimony payers’ “horror stories” online and talking to reporters.

“That’s what I kept doing until we developed a critical mass,” he said.

By 2009, Hitner found himself the only non-lawyer on an Alimony Reform Task Force appointed by the Massachusetts judiciary to explore changes that could be made to alimony laws in the state. It would still be another two years before Massachusetts passed sweeping alimony changes, including greatly diminishing the ordering of permanent alimony. It proved to be a lengthy battle for Hitner from which emerged a political philosophy he continues to share with others seeking change nationally; one of staying positive in climates that can lead to negativity which can derail progress. He now runs U.S. Divorce Mediation & Consulting, a firm dedicated to helping others avoid the divorce pitfalls like the ones he faced.

“Bottom line is I never said a bad word about an attorney or legislator,” he said. “It’s about persuading people to see your point of view, not attacking them.”

It is around this time that the battle over alimony reform in Florida began in a state as we discussed where some laws date back to English Common Law. Efforts so far have been successful on many fronts but ultimately have failed to bring change to the law.

Battleground Florida

While Hitner achieved success, a group in Florida eventually named Family Law Reform emerged and quickly became one of the largest advocacy groups in the United States. Permanent alimony payer and Brevard County financial advisor Alan Frisher would become the leader of the group which saw its membership swell into the thousands and began gathering steam in the media and with political leaders.

Others would also gain notoriety such as Deborah Leff-Kelapaire, who would co-found a group called the Second Wives Club after she found herself unwilling to marry her longtime fiancée because her salary would re-calculate his alimony. She continues to be active in the alimony reform movement, which I will discuss later.

By 2012, lobbying and media attention led to a sponsor in the Senate, who would introduce a bill during the 2013 legislative session that would kick-off a political battle continuing today during which sides were drawn and protestors for and against eventually brought protests to the state capitol.

Round One

As the legislature geared up for the spring 2013 session, alimony reform would get its first hearing by lawmakers with the filing of Senate Bill 718 by Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, who had just been elected to the Senate in 2012 after serving in the Florida House for four years.

It was groundbreaking proposed legislation outlining sweeping reform that would establish specific guidelines judges would have to stick to in calculating alimony based on the length of a marriage and how much income the parties made. It also all but did away with permanent alimony and made the legislation retroactive to prior divorce settlements.

Florida Family Law Reform PAC Member Steve Albino - vimeo Video

The bill proved to be a lightning rod that brought opposition from the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar and numerous women’s groups including the National Organization for Women and a grassroots group called the First Wives Club. The political bombshell would not only play out in the legislature but in the media as the bill made a strong move through both Florida chambers. A cottage industry of pundits, guest columnists, and reporting on the bill’s progress would emerge. Basically, the two sides arguments boiled down to supporters pointing to nightmare stories of going broke paying alimony in a world where more women work and can support themselves following a divorce. Opponents became vocal that the bill would hurt women who have sacrificed their careers to take care of the home and children, and would have a difficult, if not impossible, time finding work.

Intense debate, however, gave way to what appeared to be a stunningly swift victory for alimony reform as opponents of the bill lost out, at least with legislators. It overwhelmingly passed in the Senate with a 29-11 vote; and in the House by an 81-35 votes. The celebration was on for the alimony reform movement. All they needed: Gov. Rick Scott’s signature and swift change would come far short of the near-decade of struggle the likes of Hitner endured.

It didn’t happen. Scott vetoed the bill on May 1, 2013, citing the clause making the bill retroactive to past divorces in the state as the reason. It proved to be a bitter moment for the alimony reform movement; a shock that proved to be one of many disappointments that would ensue in the years to come. The failure came with irony as another high-profile governor, Chris Christie of New Jersey, would go the opposite route by signing a bill in September 2014 that did away with the presumption of permanent alimony in that state.

Meanwhile, that same year inaction would stall the alimony reform movement in Florida as Scott ran for and won re-election. Next step: file a new bill in 2015; this one without the retroactive mandate. That would take care of Scott’s opposition. Or would it?

Muddied Waters

The 2015 legislative session will go down as one of the strangest in Florida history, and alimony reform efforts took a hit for it.

This time around two members of the Florida House – Rep. Colleen Burton, R-Lakeland, and then Rep. Rich Workman, R-Melbourne – filed House Bill 943, with Stargel again filing a sister bill in the Senate, SB 1248. Both had similar language to the bill in 2013 with the exception of retroactivity.

Once again the bill began to sail through committees in both chambers, but also picked up baggage that would lead to infighting among Republicans even after the session abruptly halted over a healthcare dispute.

As the possible expansion of Medicaid took center stage during the session, alimony reform seemed to be flying under the radar. This time around with retroactivity stripped from the bill and other negotiations for compromise, the Florida Bar declared support for the House bill. But an underbelly of discontent emerged as another senator, Tom Lee, R-Brandon, looked to add onto the bill a provision that would deal with child time-sharing.

Lee’s successful push to add-on the presumption of 50/50 time-sharing of children by the courts in separations drew public criticism from some women’s and children’s advocacy groups and the Florida Bar. Many supporters of alimony reform also wanted to shy away from conflating alimony and child custody issues. But on the surface it did not seem to be impeding the bills’ progress in either chamber, as they both sailed through committees.

Then the meltdown happened. The House called the session a wrap three days early over the healthcare flap before legislators even reached a budget. The abrupt ending killed numerous bills before they received a vote, including both alimony bills. At that point, the acrimony over Lee’s adding of the 50/50 clause came flooding out from the one of the bill’s sponsors in the House, shedding light on a battle over an issue that would haunt the alimony reform movement down the road.

Attorney Bruce Przepis on Alimony Reform - vimeo Video

After the session halted, Rep. Workman blasted Sen. Lee in the press saying a past child time-sharing issue Lee had in his own family had been behind his effort to piggyback on alimony reform. Lee denied that claim and the in-fighting showed the signs of fissures within the alimony reform movement that would doom another bill down the road. A story in the Miami Herald detailed the feud between Lee and Workman, who told the newspaper Scott had warned him prior to the session “don’t bring back retroactivity and don’t bring back drama’ if he wanted the governor’s approval.” (As an aside, numerous media outlets have reported Workman has since left the House due to term limits and most recently resigned a position on the state’s Public Service Commission amid a sexual misconduct allegation.)

Even though the alimony reform bills died before reaching Scott’s death, the governor would again be forced to take up the issue and would get all the drama he could handle.

Another Veto

The 2016 legislative session proved to be the most explosive yet as another effort renewed to pass an alimony reform bill. Once again, Sen. Stargel and Rep. Burton led the way filing SB 668 HB 455 respectively, which both contained similar alimony reform language as in the past. Lee also filed a separate bill, SB 250, which dealt with his desired legislation creating a 50/50 child time-sharing presumption in the courts.

It appeared alimony reform would move forward separate from the child-time sharing issue revealed to be so toxic during the 2015 aborted session. But that proved not to be the case. Instead of SB 250 moving forward on its own, it was again tacked onto Stargel’s bill in a push by Lee.

Once again, numerous women’s organizations came out against the Senate bill. The Florida Bar also admonished the 50/50 part of the bill which prior to that addition the organization supported. It still eventually won out and passed both chambers easily amid intense rhetoric from opposition.

“Many, many times the sponsors and supporters of this bill say that it will give certainty to the law. It certainly will. It will certainly throw thousands of women and their children into poverty,” Florida National Organization for Women Lobbyist Barbara DeVane told one committee in 2016.

Frisher continued to weigh in as head of Family Law Reform testifying before several committees that year.

“No legislation is perfect. But it’s a far better cry than what we have right now, which is absolutely nothing. Judges right now can create willy-nilly amounts that are unfathomable and unable to be paid,” he said.

Rhetoric from both sides reached a fever pitch and that drama Workman previously said Scott warned him of came right to the governor’s doorstep as protests from both sides erupted on the capitol steps and in the halls of Scott’s office as the bill reached his desk.

In the end, the bill met another death at the governor’s pen. This time around what caused the governor to veto alimony reform again? Something that had nothing to do with it – the 50/50 child time-sharing mandate attached to the bill during session.

With 2016 proving to be firestorm when it came to alimony reform, many assumed the fight would resume in 2017. It didn’t happen that way. The struggles over the years took their toll on some of the leading voices in the movement and many feeling Scott’s repeated vetoes spelled temporary doom for the movement. Another push for alimony reform is coming, but maybe not as soon as many thought heading into last year’s session.

A Puzzling Death

By December 2016, rumblings of another push for alimony reform started to begin anew. Frisher announced the end of Family Law Reform as it had been known. Instead, he struck a deal to merge the group with the National Parents Organization giving it more membership. The new partnership set up a branch in Florida which quickly announced its support for a new bill filed in the Senate.

The bill, SB 412, filed by Sen. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, would be the first dealing with alimony not filed by Stargel. The bill had no mention of the 50/50 child-time sharing language but it would also emerge that many in the alimony reform movement also felt reform offered by previous bills regarding alimony had been watered down to the point of being gutted. It was a fissure that would prove to be enough to derail SB 412 much to the surprise of Frisher and the Family Law Section Florida Bar, which both had announced support for the new bill.

Instead, the bill went nowhere with Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs chair Sen. Rene Garcia, R-Hialeah, on April 5 tabling the bill effectively killing it without an explanation.

Tampa Attorney and Family Law Section of the Florida Bar member Philip Wartenberg told me last March “this is the bill we had hoped to see passed this year. We are just puzzled like everyone why this isn’t moving forward.”

That same month the mystery as to why the bill failed to move forward became more clear with a new political action committee being formed, the former leader of which would profess what brought lawmakers to pull the plug on the 2017 effort in order to wait out Scott leaving office due to term limits for another legislative push in 2019.

New Blood

The Florida Family Law Political Action Committee quickly became a new force on the scene as alimony reform stalled again in 2017. The group distanced from the leadership of Frisher and in April, the new group announced its CEO to be Terrance Power, a financial planner from Oldsmar who made news years ago as he discussed his divorce with the Tampa Bay Times which had the headline: “The Divorce from Hell, the Battle for Alimony and Emptied Pockets”. Another familiar face in the alimony reform movement from her days with Family Law Reform and the Second Wives Club, Deborah Leff-Kelapire, also came forward as a leader of the group.

The group pledged to be an all-volunteer lobbying entity that will be vigorously seeking alimony reform in 2019 using the template of the 2013 bill vetoed by Gov. Scott. The group has already held two statewide meetings in Oldsmar in Pinellas County, and in Boca Raton.

During the July Oldsmar meeting, Power explained the reason for the demise of the 2017 bill saying it had been so gutted that many in the alimony reform movement came out against it.

“We just took it off the table,” he said.

As the group gathers steam, there has already been a major change at the top. Power has since resigned his position, but it may end up being a big positive for the PAC if his reason for leaving works out. In December, Power announced his decision to run for Florida’s House District 64 seat held by Rep. Jamie Grant.

While Power seeks office, the alimony reform movement did suffer a big blow this year with the resignation of Sen. Jack Latvala, the once powerful senator from Clearwater, who left office amid sexual and groping claims made by several women and a finding by an investigation that stated he may have broken state law by promising legislative favors for physical contact with women, according to numerous media reports.

Before the firestorm, Latvala spoke at the PAC’s July meeting in Oldsmar pledging support for the alimony reform cause and sent a legislative aide to speak at the group’s October Boca meeting. Throughout, the PAC, however, never officially endorsed Latvala.

As the political scene has shifted for the group in terms of the governor’s race and Power’s bid for elective office, it remains to be seen what the way forward for alimony reform will be. One thing is for sure, the history of alimony reform in Florida so far has been an incredible display of politics and raw emotion, and is one that is likely to continue on a controversial path.