Appellate court trends in rehabilitative alimony: 10 years later.

• Author: Ho, Victoria M.
• Position: Florida

Rehabilitative alimony is a tool used by courts to allow a former spouse to "establish the capacity for self-support ... either through the redevelopment of previous skills or provision of the training necessary to develop potential supportive skills." (1) An award of rehabilitative alimony should be based on a consideration of the factors set forth in F.S. [section]61.08. It is clear that some statutory factors carry more weight than others when the issue of rehabilitative alimony is before the court; however, there are factors not mentioned in [section]61.08 that can also influence a court in its rehabilitative alimony decisions.

Ten years ago, appellate court trends in both permanent alimony awards and rehabilitative alimony awards were examined. (2) During this time, many cases have been decided which require a second look at the trends. (3) This article will examine decisions on rehabilitative alimony during the past 10 years. (4) This article addresses the cases and trends emerging since 1997 and only addresses initial awards of rehabilitative alimony, not modification proceedings.

The Chart

A chart addressing Florida cases decided in the last 10 years where the court provided an analysis of why it either affirmed or reversed an award of rehabilitative alimony is available by email request to stephanie@asbellho.com. (This chart is divided into two main sections: Cases in which the rehabilitative award was affirmed and cases in which the rehabilitative award was reversed. Within each of these two sections the cases are organized by district and in reverse chronological order. Some of the cases are highlighted in either blue, green, or red. The blue cases represent those in which permanent alimony was also awarded; the green cases are those in which an award of bridge the gap alimony was discussed; and the red cases are those in which the rehabilitative alimony was denied because the marriage did not harm the employability of the recipient spouse.)

Background

Canakaris v. Canakaris, 328 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1980), is the seminal case on alimony awards in Florida. Besides defining the purpose of rehabilitative awards, the Canakaris court established that awards of alimony should not be based on inflexible rules that prevent courts from doing justice between the parties. (5) This flexibility is what allows appellate courts to go beyond [section]61.08 when deciding if a spouse is entitled to an award of rehabilitative alimony. Section 61.08 allows trial courts to consider any relevant factor when fashioning awards of alimony. (6) Although appellate courts making decisions on rehabilitative awards look for specific requirements to be met before affirming a rehabilitative alimony award, as the following analysis will illustrate, there is more than one way to influence the court.

Rehabilitative Plans

Ten years ago it was clear that the most important factor in fashioning a rehabilitative alimony award was the presentation of a rehabilitative plan. (7) This still holds true. The most effective way to ensure an award of rehabilitative alimony is to present a detailed, written plan to the court specifying the client's roadmap toward employability. Supporting this assertion is the fact that in 17 of the 49 cases (35 percent) we reviewed, an award of rehabilitative alimony was reversed or denied based solely on the absence of factual findings or the failure of the recipient spouse to present a valid rehabilitative plan. (8)

There are no specific rules regarding what should be included in a rehabilitative plan, and a rehabilitative plan may be oral or written. (9) Even the cases in which the court focuses on the sufficiency of the rehabilitative plan are decided based on different aspects of the plan. However, a few cases provide particularly good illustrations of what to consider when structuring a rehabilitative plan. For instance, in Hausdorff v. Hausdorff, 913 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the Fourth District Court affirmed a rehabilitative award in which the rehabilitative plan included the specific school the wife would attend, her intended degree, the estimated cost of tuition and textbooks, and that the husband's obligation to fund the rehabilitation would expire in four years. The court found this plan to be sufficient to support the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony. (10)

Alternatively, in Ingram v. Ingram, 750 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the Second District Court reversed an award of rehabilitative alimony for a wife who already had a college degree and requested rehabilitative alimony in order to earn an MBA. The wife had not yet taken the necessary admissions test and was planning on taking courses at a more expensive private university rather than a less expensive public university. (11) This plan did not contain many specifics and had elements that indicated to the court the wife was less than serious about being rehabilitated. (12)

The difference between these two cases, on their faces, is the level of detail in the plans and the perceived motivations of the spouses seeking rehabilitation. Ultimately, the plan must show that the requesting spouse will be able to earn more money after the rehabilitation period so that he or she will be at least partially self-supporting. (13)

Length of Marriage

The length of a marriage is an enumerated factor in [section]61.08, (14) yet it is not a crucial factor when arguing for or against an award of rehabilitative alimony. (15) However, in a long-term marriage, in order to obtain a combined award of permanent and rehabilitative alimony, there must be evidence that the recipient spouse can actually be rehabilitated to be, at least partially, self-sufficient. (16) In order to determine if a spouse can be rehabilitated, a court will consider the impact of the marriage on the career, employability, or the self-sufficiency of the receiving spouse. So, while the length of the marriage itself is not a crucial factor, it may be relevant to the impact of the marriage on the receiving spouse's ability to become self-supporting.

The impact of a marriage on the career, employability, or self-sufficiency of a spouse is easily understood by envisioning a spouse who either gave up or postponed a career or education to benefit the other spouse, or a spouse who has been out of the job market for so long that he or she needs education or retraining before reentering the workforce. This is usually the result of the recipient spouse having spent a significant period of time caring for children or supporting the other spouse in advancing his or her career.

Many cases address the issue of a spouse postponing or interrupting a career or education. For example, in Alpha v. Alpha, 885 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), the Fifth District affirmed a rehabilitative award when, during the marriage, the wife abandoned her goal of becoming a social worker in order to work in the husband's insurance office. The court reasoned that, even though the wife held two insurance licenses, she should be able to pursue the career of her choice. (17) The Fifth District has approved awards of rehabilitative alimony in multiple other cases when a wife supported a husband throughout his career rather than pursue one of her own. (18) In Knoff v. Knoff, 751 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the Second District reached the same result in a case in which the husband and wife agreed that the wife would give up her career in order to stay home with the children. In Layeni v. Layeni, 843 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), the Fifth District also awarded rehabilitative alimony in a case in which a wife stayed home with the children throughout the seven-year marriage and, thus, needed assistance to reenter the workforce. In Young v. Hector, 740 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the Third District reached a similar result in a case in which the husband needed to update his job skills in order to return to work as an architect. All of these cases have different facts, yet they all reach the same result in awarding rehabilitative alimony to a spouse who needs assistance in becoming self-sufficient.

Conversely, almost every district has found that a spouse should not receive rehabilitative alimony if the marriage did not impact the ability of the spouse to be self-supporting. (19) When arguing for or against rehabilitative alimony, you will be more effective if you focus on whether the marriage impacted the employability of the spouse rather than emphasizing the length of the marriage. This trend is illustrated by the cases highlighted in red on the chart. In Landow v. Landow, 824 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the wife sought rehabilitative alimony in connection with the dissolution of her five-year marriage. In denying her request, the appellate court reasoned that her business did not suffer as a result of the marriage. (20) Another case from the Fourth District, Bode v. Bode, 920 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), also illustrates this point as the court denied an award of rehabilitative alimony in a less than two-year marriage to a wife who left a good paying job in another country. The court reasoned that, despite her move to the United States, there was no evidence that the marriage harmed her employability. (21) The Fifth...