ALMA LILLIAN BRIDGES, APPELLANT,
v.
JOEL ROBERT BRIDGES, SR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A former wife appeals the termination of her $1,800/month permanent alimony award after the trial court found she was cohabiting with another man and failed to prove continued need for alimony support. The appellate court modified the judgment to award $1.00 per month nominal alimony while affirming the termination, reasoning that while cohabitation can justify modification, complete termination fails to protect against future changed circumstances.
Unmarried cohabitation raises a presumption of changed circumstances, shifting the burden to the recipient spouse to prove continued need for alimony. However, complete termination is improper because a voluntary cohabitant's support cannot be equated with a legal obligation; instead, nominal alimony of $1.00/month should be awarded to protect the recipient's interests against future changed circumstances.
[1] Unmarried cohabitation raises a presumption of changed circumstances sufficient to warrant modification or termination of alimony.
[2] For unmarried cohabitation to be sufficient to warrant a finding of changed circumstances, the court must consider whether the cohabitant provides support to the recipien…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida law does not recognize "de facto remarriage" as a basis for terminating court ordered alimony [...] However, unmarried cohabitation raises a presumption of changed circumstances.”
Establishes the legal framework for cohabitation as grounds for alimony modification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in 1985 after a 20-year marriage, with the former wife receiving $1,800/month permanent alimony. In 1992, the former wife be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nominal Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
Appellant (the former wife) appeals the termination of her permanent alimony award of $1,800.00 per month. Appellant argues there was insufficient evidence on which the trial court could find a significant change in circumstances justifying the termination of alimony. We modify the judgment to award alimony in the amount of $1.00 per month. We affirm in all other respects. I
The original final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered on June 7, 1985, ended the parties’ marriage of twenty-years and, at issue in this case, awarded Appellant $1,800.00 per month as permanent alimony until she remarried or died. Appellee (the former husband) filed a supplemental complaint for termination or modification of alimony, alleging Appellant was cohabitating with Mr. Thomas Barker in a “de facto” marriage arrangement. Although not legally married, in August of 1992, Appellant and Barker participated in a ceremony in which they exchanged vows and rings. At the conclusion of the ceremony, the couple was presented as “partners in life.”
The trial court found cohabitation, and that Appellant and Barker provided financial support to each other. The trial court also considered Appellant’s current needs, the resources available to Appellant, and the resources Barker had available for Appellant’s support.
II
Appellant argues, and we agree, that Florida law does not recognize “de facto remarriage” as a basis for terminating court ordered alimony. See DePoorter v. DePoorter, 509 So. 2d 1141, 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). However, unmarried cohabitation raises a presumption of changed circumstances. Id. For cohabitation to be sufficient to warrant a finding of changed circumstances, the court must consider whether either of two factors is present: whether the cohabitant provides support to the recipient spouse, or whether the recipient spouse contributes to the support of the cohabitant. Id. at 1145; Maclaren v. Maclaren, 616 So. 2d 104, 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
At least in the First District, this presumption means that once the party seeking modification establishes cohabitation and shows support to or from the cohabitant, a significant change in circumstances is established, and the burden of proof shifts to the recipient spouse to show continued need. See Lee v. Lee, 544 So. 2d 1083, 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The burden of proof shifts because evidence of the recipient spouse’s economic situation “is peculiarly within his or her knowledge and may not be readily available to the payor spouse.” Id. (citations omitted).
Contrary to Appellant’s allegations of increased need, the trial court found the evidence showed decreased expenses, that Appellant had significant individual resources, and that Barker was willing and able to support Appellant. The trial court concluded Appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to show continued need for alimony.
Ill
We conclude the trial court’s findings of fact were supported by competent, substantial evidence. However, “[t]he voluntary contribution of a live-in companion cannot be equated with the legal obligation of a [spouse or] former spouse.... ” Long v. Long, 622 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Therefore, an award of nominal alimony should have been made to protect Appellant’s interests should she experience a significant change in circumstances. See Blanchard v. Blanchard, 793 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2001); Ellis v. Ellis, 699 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
ALLEN, C.J. and BENTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donoff v. Mitzi Robin Donoff, 940 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ld appear to amount to more than sufficient financial resources and income to meet her appropriate needs at the appropriate level when all of her financial resources and income are properly considered. And then there is this. In Bridges v. Bridges, 842 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the court held that when a former [*1226] spouse paying alimony has established that the payee is receiving support from an unmarried cohabiting partner, a substantial change in circumstances has been shown, and the burden…
-
Buxton v. Buxton, 963 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…of section 61.14(1)(b), the courts allowed a payor spouse to seek modification of alimony under section 61.14(a) when the recipient spouse was cohabiting with another. See, e.g., Reno v. Reno, 884 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Bridges v. Bridges, 842 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Springstead v. Springstead, 717 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); DePoorter v. DePoorter, 509 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In those cases, the fact that a recipient spouse was cohabiting with another was not, by itself, suffic…
-
Linstroth v. Dorgan, 2 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…462, 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“A trial judge may not order that alimony cease simply because the alimony recipient cohabits with another person, even when this arrangement appears to be one consistent with a de facto marriage.”); Bridges v. Bridges, 842 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that Florida law does not recognize cohabitation as a basis for automatic termination of court ordered alimony); Kenyon v. Kenyon, 496 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (same); Schneider v. Schneider, 467 So. 2d 465 (Fl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DePOORTER v. Win Edward DePOORTER, 509 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Blanchard v. Maran L. Blanchard, 793 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- LEE v. LEE, 544 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Long v. Long, 622 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Coba v. Coba, 699 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Ellis v. Ellis, 699 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- In re The Marriage of Noel K. MacLaren v. MacLaren, 616 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)