Are interstate alimony awards enforceable and modifiable in Florida after an interstate divorce? An Alabama ex-spouse who moved to Florida discovers the answer is more complex than many family lawyers might think. This recent case shows how a court should treat interstate alimony awards.

Interstate Alimony 2

Sweet Home Alabama

The parties divorced in 2004 and a Final Judgment of Divorce was entered in Alabama. That judgment adopted the parties’ marital settlement agreement. Under their agreement, the husband agreed to pay the wife $1,000 per month in alimony. But over time, the wife was receiving her ex-husband’s Social Security benefits, and that raises an issue about whether social security benefits reduce a spouse’s obligation to pay alimony and child support.

Later, the husband relocated to Florida. In 2013, the wife filed a Verified Petition to Establish Foreign Decree as Florida Order and for Enforcement of their agreement in Florida. In 2014, that family judge signed an order declaring it would apply Alabama law to resolve the legal issues raised in the wife’s petition in interpreting the agreement. The court also concluded that Social Security benefits may be used to satisfy an alimony obligation, or stated another way, were a credit against alimony due.

Over the years, while her petition remained pending in the family court, the wife challenged whether her former spouse was entitled to a credit against the required alimony payments for the payments she was receiving through his Social Security benefits.

In 2022, a Florida court denied her motions, finding that because she was receiving, through her ex-husband’s Social Security benefits, payments in excess of the alimony obligation, the alimony obligation was “terminated as a matter of law.”

Florida Social Security Benefits and Alimony

Under Alabama law, Social Security is the same as an insurance policy with a private carrier, similar to a parent insuring against death or loss of physical ability to fulfill moral and legal obligations to dependent children. Just as insurance payments may fulfill and discharge alimony, Alabama law reasons, why shouldn’t Social Security benefits apply to child support as well as alimony obligations?.

Florida is different. Court do not allow a spouse to unilaterally use social security disability payments, for example, as a set-off against past due alimony unless there is some compelling equitable criteria and considerations or a settlement agreement provides for it.

Alabama Getaway

The wife appealed. On appeal, the court held that while the agreement adopted under Alabama final judgment requires the husband to pay alimony, the trial court correctly determined that the wife did not establish that her ex-husband failed to meet his alimony obligation.

The trial court applied Alabama law and concluded that the payment of his Social Security benefits satisfied his alimony obligation in full.

However, the Florida family court had also concluded that his alimony and life insurance obligations were “terminated as a matter of law.”

The family court erred in declaring alimony was terminated in two ways. First, a Florida court lacks jurisdiction to terminate an alimony final order of another state under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

Second, under Alabama law, an alimony obligation is not terminated through the payment of Social Security benefits. Rather, the party required to pay alimony receives a credit against an alimony obligation for Social Security payments or benefits received by the other party.

The opinion is here.

Interstate divorces can become a serious constitutional problem when you are enforcing foreign judgments. We recently won an important constitutional victory on appeal after a Florida divorce court refused to enforce a Missouri foreign judgment.

Interstate Divorce

Gateway to a United Country

A couple married in Missouri. Then they asked to borrow money from the Husband’s mother to buy a marital home in Missouri. The mother-in-law agreed to lend them the money for the down payment after the couple agreed to repay her in full.

The couple then asked that the Mother-in-law pay their mortgage payments and lend them even more money to renovate their new home they bought, with the same arrangement that they would repay her from the sale of their previous home.

They didn’t pay back the mother-in-law. Instead, they moved to Florida and defaulted.

The Mother-in-law sued them, and won a final judgment awarding her money from on the unpaid loan in a Missouri Circuit Court.

The parties then filed for divorce in Florida. The mother-in law was concerned her judgment would never be repaid, so she intervened in their divorce as a foreign judgment creditor to enforce her Missouri final judgment.

The Florida divorce court allowed her to intervene and enforce the Missouri judgment, but entered a new divorce final judgment slashing the mother-in-law’s Missouri judgment in half so the couple didn’t have to pay her back what they owed.

The trial court’s actions violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, a constitutional clause which helps make us one country, not 50 independent countries.

Florida Interstate Divorce Issues

I’ve written and spoken about interstate divorce issues before. The typical interstate problems occur in cases in which two parents reside in one state, like Missouri for instance, then one or more of the parents and the children move across state lines to Florida, for instance.

Interstate problems can include enforcing foreign custody orders, enforcing or modifying family support orders (like alimony and child support), or enforcing foreign money judgments.

To help with confusion between different laws in different American states, the Uniform Law Commission is tasked with drafting laws on various subjects that attempt to bring uniformity across American state lines.

With respect to family law, different American states had adopted different approaches to issues related to interstate custody, interstate alimony, and child support. The results were that different states had conflicting resolutions to the same problems.

To seek harmony in this area, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the UCCJEA) and Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (the UIFSA), which Florida and almost all U.S. states passed into law.

A major problem arises when one state’s judgment conflicts with Florida’s public policy. For example, grandparent visitation is an area of law in which Florida does not really recognize a grandparent’s rights, but many other states do.

A few years ago, the Florida Supreme Court the Florida Supreme Court held that Florida is not allowed to elevate its own public policy over the policy behind a sister state’s judgment.

Accordingly, a Florida divorce court cannot refuse to enforce a Missouri judgment for money damages if one happened to be at issue in a Florida divorce. But that’s exactly what happened recently in a divorce court here.

Sunshine State Meets the Show Me State

After the Florida divorce court’s ruling, we asked an appellate court in Florida to reverse what the divorce court had done. On appeal, a panel of judges reviewed the case.

We explained that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution creates a constitutional duty that U.S. states must honor the laws and judgments of the other sister states.

That is an important aspect of American federalism because it changes the various U.S. states from being independent foreign countries, and making them integral parts of a single nation.

This form of federalism has traditionally meant that one state in the United States may not modify or alter the judgment of a sister state (excluding child support and custody cases which can be modified under very limited circumstances).

In our case, no one disputed the validity of the Missouri judgment. Everyone participated in a full trial on the merits in Missouri. In reversing, the appellate court held that a Florida divorce court was prevented from inquiring into the merits of the cause of action or the logic or consistency of the Missouri court’s decision.

Because the mother-in-law appropriately intervened in the divorce action and asserted her right to enforce the Missouri judgment, the divorce court did not have discretion to alter or reduce the Missouri judgment or it constituted a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The appellate opinion is here.

Category: Interstate Divorce

Interstate Alimony Awards