Alimony awards unfair to men, suit claims

Richard Lindsey wants to put an end to alimony as we know it.

The 66-year-old retired plumbing contractor from Stuart and divorced father of five says Florida courts hand out alimony with a bias against men and without consideration of their financial circumstances. The result, he says, has been "indentured servitude."

Though Lindsey has agitated for reform of Florida's alimony laws since 1987 through letter writing campaigns to newspapers, he is taking his fight a step farther.

Late last month Lindsey, through his nonprofit organization Alliance for Freedom from Alimony, filed suit in Palm Beach Circuit Court against Gov. Jeb Bush. The suit contends that the state's alimony statute violates the gender equality language of Article I, Section 2 of the state constitution. It asks the court to order the governor to stop enforcement of payments under the present system.

Lindsey's group comprises 100 chiefly Florida middle-aged and older men who read the letters to the editor Lindsey has written over the years to various newspapers and who felt a simpatic relationship. They began to contact him, and the alliance soon blossomed. The group, which has applied for 501(c) status, charges $12 annual dues.

Florida's alimony statute is gender-neutral and stipulates that alimony can be paid to either husband or wife and can be either permanent or short-term. The statute directs the courts to consider "all relevant economic factors, "including "the time necessary for either party to acquire sufficient education or training to enable such party to find appropriate employment" and "any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties."

The problem arises in the way the courts interpret the law, says Valentin Rodriguez, a West Palm Beach solo practitioner who represents the alliance. "Judges are making alimony awards based on the weight of tradition," he says. "It's a system rooted in the old inequality of men and women," That, he says, renders the statute unconstitutional "as applied."

It's a novel argument, admits Rodriguez, "and a difficult burden to prove." He expects the case will turn on the results of statistical summaries of alimony awards across the state, which the alliance is in the process of gathering. "We expect to prove that alimony is not necessarily tied to need," he says.

Rodriguez would like the court to direct the governor to form a commission to study reform and repeal of existing alimony laws. The alliance believes the Texas model of alimony would be an acceptable solution. That law, as they describe it, involves the equitable distribution of community property and the elimination of spousal support.

Lindsey's own experience with alimony began in 1982 when he divorced his wife of several years. He says he spent most of the divorce proceeding fighting for custody of his five daughters, which he obtained. But, he says, he was "stunned" to find himself saddled with a court order to pay $800 a month in alimony to his ex-wife. This, despite the fact that she was a skilled professional who, he claims, went on to "some highfalutin' position with the Reagan administration" in the mid-'80s. "I raised the girls and she paid no child support," Lindsey complains.

Lindsey still pays alimony, even though he has no idea of his ex's present financial circumstances. His payments were reduced in 1986 to $400 a month, but he says his income has fluctuated over time and that the alimony has averaged one-third of his net income. He estimates he's paid more than $100,000 in the last 20 years.

Lindsey says the Martin County courts have refused his requests for further adjustments to his alimony payments and that both the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach and the Florida Supreme Court have refused to hear appeals of the lower court rulings.

Lindsey believes his case is representative of the courts' failure to evaluate claims of undue burden and financial hardship on the part of those who pay alimony.

Though other family law practitioners think the alliance makes some legitimate arguments, they give the lawsuit a slim chance of winning.

Florida Bar family law section chair Jeffery Wasserman, a partner in the Hollywood firm Muchnik Wasserman Dolin & Levine, agrees that the courts may not always honor their obligation to grant alimony on the merits. But, Wesserman points out, such awards are always subject to modification. He cites as an example Pimm v. Pimm, a 1992 Florida Supreme Court ruling that established the right of alimony payers to retire and reduce thier payments. "That's why we have appeals court," he says.

Gerald Deutch, of the Fort Lauderdale solo practice Divorce Without War, has practiced family law for 42 years. He suggests that, "as a practical matter, some of [the alliance charges] are probably true." He says that alimony frequently is awarded on a basis that is a "hangover from the old philosophy of gender" and says it's difficult to get reductions in awards.

But, Deutch adds, a good deal of the disparity in the awarding of alimony only compensates for "existing social and economic inequality." He warns that if the lawsuit's objective is to eliminate the court's power to grant alimony, "it would be a step backward from a societal point of view."

Rodriguez admits it isn't going to be an easy fight. "This case is not going to be resolved in a lower court," he says. In the meantime, according to Lindsey, the alliance is growing in size. "We've got our Web site - www.alimonyreform.org - up now," he says. And the applications keep coming in.

Florida's Supreme Court Gender Bias Report

This is the forum in which Floridians' constitutionally guaranteed fundamental Right to Privacy, Right to Pursue happiness and property rights are adjudicated

Quotes from The Report of the Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Study Commission (1990).

    “…gender bias permeates Florida’s legal system today.” (page 42)

    “After reviewing this monograph, the Chief Justice of Florida and his colleagues on the Florida Supreme Court concluded that gender bias does in fact exist in the state’s legal system.” (page 42)

    “Dislike of family law may lead to being uninformed and insensitive about family law.  Sixty-eight percent of  family law attorneys responding to a Bench-Bar Survey opined that judges were uninformed, insensitive or both when presiding over family law matters; and more than seventy-five percent of the family law attorneys agreed that courts have preconceived notions about family law matters and really do not want to see the “total picture”:

    “Apparently, most judges really do not want to hear family law matters and it shows…It cannot be comforting to find that the one who holds the future of your access to your children and your financial future in his or her hands has, at best, little interest in that role, or, at worst, a distaste for it.” (page 54)

    “Most of Florida's circuit court judges dislike dealing with family law matters. This attitude can affect the outcome of cases.” (page 6)

    “As a result of their almost unlimited discretion, trial courts distribute marital assets either as property or alimony with a lack of certainty and consistency. This may lead to inappropriate property settlements between the parties.” (page 7)

Quotes from the follow up  Gender Bias—Then and Now, Continuing Challenges in the Legal System, The Report of the Gender Bias Study Implementation Commission (1996)

    “However, it is not clear, based on appellate decisions, whether a trial judge must consider all the statutory factors and give equal weight to all, or just

 the relevant ones.” (page 7)

   “The original Commission recommended that the laws dealing with the amount of spousal support require the trial judges to set consistent amounts, in all cases, and amounts which comport with the supported spouse’s marital standard of living, analogous to child support guidelines. This has not been done. Section 61.08 requires the trial judge to make a laundry list of fact findings when alimony is asked for and either awarded or denied. It is not clear whether all the statutory factors must be considered, or only relevant ones, and whether or not there is any factor or factors which should be given more weight than others.” (page 7)

Chief Justice Gary Farmer of the Florida 4th DCA in Bacon v. Bacon, 819 So.2d 950. 955 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 2002) expresses his imperial bias...

   “The majority’s abrogation of the doctrine of necessaries appears to shift the policy of the State by, in effect, requiring each spouse to take care of himself or herself.”

To read the following documents you'll need the Adobe Acrobat Reader installed. If you don't have it, it is a free download. Click on the Acrobat icon and follow the instructions to install.

Full Pleading - (Acrobat Document)
Memo of Law Alimony is Unconstitutional - (Acrobat Document)
Response to a Motion to Dismissal - (Acrobat Document)
Georgia Alimony Unconstitutional Pleading - (MS Word Document)