Post separation lifestyle is NOT the standard of living to be used when determining permanent alimony.
Part of opinion: During the marriage the parties lived comfortably in large homes, travelled frequently, and never worried about being able to pay their bills. After the parties separated, the former husband lived in a small apartment, drove a truck with over 200,000 miles on it, and could barely make ends meet. The court found that “[t]he evidence establishes that the parties lived an upper-middle class lifestyle during the course of the marriage. The Husband’s current lifestyle is not commensurate with the marital lifestyle.”…Given the standard of living established during the marriage and the disparity between the parties’ incomes, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the former husband a nominal amount of alimony. See Juchnowicz v. Juchnowicz, 157 So. 3d 497, 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that the trial court erred when it determined the wife’s need for permanent alimony based on her postseparation lifestyle, rather than the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage); Griffin v. Griffin, 906 So. 2d 386, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that permanent alimony is intended to allow a spouse “to maintain the standard of living established by the parties during the marriage and to ensure that . . . one spouse is not ‘shortchanged’ “); Donoff v. Donoff, 940 So. 2d 1221, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (noting that the purpose of permanent periodic alimony is “to avoid—where possible—having a recipient pass from the ease and comfort of always having more than enough, to the distress of having only just enough for the essentials of minimum food, shelter and clothing”). The trial court’s alimony award is not commensurate with the parties’ marital standard of living and creates a gross disparity.
Court: 2nd DCA
Case No. 2D20-162
Case Name: RICHARD THOMAS MORGAN v. MONICA SUE MORGAN,
Opinion date: September 17, 2021
Link to full opinion: https://hi.switchy.io/7EIV