When might "Nominal Alimony" be awarded?

This question was answered by Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal in November of last year in the case of Welch v. Welch. This opinion was written to replace and clarify the Court's earlier ruling. The facts of this case are: The parties had a 23-year marriage with the Husband earning $140,000 per year in income and the Wife earning $85,000 per year in income. The Wife had requested permanent periodic alimony but the trial court awarded the Wife nominal alimony of $1.00 per year instead. The Wife appealed the case and argued, in part, that there was insufficient evidence to support the lower court's determination that she earned $85,000. The appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling stating that the lower court had not abused it's discretion. Abuse of discretion is the standard of review. The higher court looked to the statutory definition of income, the evidence before the trial court (including the Wife's 2007 income, a forensic accountant's testimony, evidence of a cost of living increase, etc...) and found that there was substantial evidence in support of the lower court's decision.

Evidence is Key

The difference between a conversation and a court hearing often revolves around proof. Proof is the ability of one party to show the Court that what they are saying is accurate. Sometimes the only proof is a person's sworn testimony but obviously, documentary proof or evidence, is preferable. A recent appellate decision out of Florida's 1st District Court of Appeals highlights this issue. In Chaney v. Fife, the Appellate Court decided last month that the slew of mistakes made by the trial court required the case be overturned. The underlying case involved issues of paternity, custody and child support. One of the many identified problems was that he trial court did not have any evidence to support its calculations for each party's federal tax liability. And worse, whatever evidence was presented was not written down by the Court it its findings of fact. Preparation and presentation of the underlying proof of the facts is crucial for trial.

Responding to a Child Support Case

Many of the matters I handle involve child support establishment or modification. Child support is, in theory, a mathematical calculation that should be relatively easy to determine using the child support guidelines established in Florida Statutes, Chapter 61. The key word there is "should." I often represent parties who have been served with a Petition or Notice by the Florida Department of Revenue (child support enforcement) that a new case has been opened or an old case is being looked at to see if child support should increase. But I sometimes get the sense that people think since it is such a "cut and dry" thing there is no need to really prepare for the hearing. Nothing could be further from the truth. My experience with hearings involving D.O.R. has been that there are too many cases flooding an over burdened system. As a result the Respondent really has to be prepared. No one is going to make sure your rights are protected except you and your lawyer. I have seen many, many erroneous mathematical calculations made that can be difficult, if not impossible, to have undone once ordered. I have been told after the fact about many cases where facts which should have been taken into consideration were not either addressed in Court or not proven. Proof requires preparation including knowledge as to what is relevant to the issue at hand and experience with the rules of evidence. Don’t let time slip away or expect that something that is clearly unjust won’t happen; it’s much better to get it right the first time.