Bridge-the-gap alimony: an emerging vehicle for satisfying short-term need.

• Author: Bennett, Jesse J., Jr.
• Position: Florida

This article traces the development of bridge-the-gap alimony in Florida, describes the ways in which Florida courts have characterized it, and explores its potential uses.

Bridge-the-gap alimony is emerging as a potent tool for the marital and family practitioner in obtaining awards for the short-term needs of their clients. Understanding its uses and limitations is essential for the proper representation of clients in such circumstances. This article will trace the development of bridge-the-gap alimony in Florida jurisprudence, describe the differing ways in which Florida courts have characterized it, and explore its potential uses.

The earliest mention of the term bridge-the-gap is contained in Murray v. Murray, 374 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).(1) In Murray, the trial court ordered the husband, a wealthy man of 72, to pay his wife (a 40-year-old woman of modest means) $1,000 per month rehabilitative alimony for four years, or until she received her bachelors degree, whichever came first.(2) The marriage had lasted a mere seven months.(3)

The court observed "at the most, however, we believe that proof would justify a brief period of alimony sufficient to allow the wife to `bridge' the gap between the high standard of living enjoyed during the brief marriage and the more modest standard that the wife can provide for herself."(4) Therefore, bridge-the-gap alimony began its existence as a method of satisfying short-term needs in a brief marriage.

Nothing further developed with the doctrine until the Third District Court of Appeal decision in Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In Iribar, the wife appealed the rehabilitative award of $1,000 per month, for an 18-month term, arguing that she needed five years for rehabilitation.(5) This case involved a 10-year childless marriage, in which the wife had pursued her own career path.(6) The Third District upheld the award, noting that the wife was employed, had adequate job skills, and did not need rehabilitation, "other than to ease her transition from a married to a single status."(7) Once again, the doctrine of bridge-the-gap alimony was used as a method to obtain short-term need in a short-term marriage.

In 1990, the First District Court of Appeal approved bridge-the-gap as a form of rehabilitative alimony in Shea v Shea, 572 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Shea, the trial court awarded the former marital home to the wife as lump sum rehabilitative alimony.(8) The...