Alimony in Florida 61.08

Unless Rick Scott signs SB 668 in the very near future, Florida's alimony laws will continue to be governed by

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0061/Sections/0061.08.html

Paragraph (10)(c) states in entirety:

 "If there is no minor child, alimony payments need not be directed through the depository."

I discussed this with Judge Earpp during a Contempt Hearing.  I said that the statutes said that if there were no minor children, alimony does not have to be directed through the depository.  He said he was aware of that.  Neither of us gave any indication that we were thinking of the statute differently.

I now think that he was thinking that judges do not have to direct alimony payments through the depository.  In my case, Judge Charles J. Roberts did direct alimony payments through the depository.

As a minimum, it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Roberts to award alimony in my case.  His award is not consistent with law.

I thought the legislature was thinking of me when they said alimony does not have to directed through the depository.  Judge Earpp was likely thinking of "the judge" did not have to direct alimony payments through the depository.

I now consider Judge Charles J. Roberts, Jr's directing alimony payments through the depository as just another example of Government Overreach.  In this case, Judicial Overreach.

Govern Scott should do everything he can to prevent more victims in the future.  I believe Govern Scott signing SB 668 into law would be a step in the Right Direction.

Are all Florida Family Lawyers algorithm challenged?

Diane Baccus-Horsley has repeatedly demonstrated that she is date-challenged and I have accused her of being arithmetically challenged.

The arithmetically challenged accusation is based on her calculations related to two withdrawals I made in 2000.  The first was about 10 times the second.  Baccus-Horsley could or did not remember that two withdrawals were involved when checking the percentage of ownership values.

I desired to close my Pioneer II account.  Transactions were limited to $100,000 or less.  My premarital Pioneer II account was over $100,000.00.  Diane Baccus-Horsley had difficulty getting the correct figure for my percentage ownership of an account in my name in which I placed my ex-spouses funds to enable her to earn about 9% interest on her funds.

The Florida Supreme Court specified a five step process in Kaaa v Kaaa.  I blogged on Kaaa vs. Kaaa is this blog on Thursday, July 16, 2015.  After determining the "marital portion", the Florida Supreme Court recommended the Stevens Methodology for allocating the marital portion.

They said that if, for example, one party brings to the marriage an asset in which he or she has an equity of fifty percent, the other half of which is financed by marital funds, half the appreciated value at the time of the petition for dissolution was filed, § 61.075(5)(a) 2, Fla. Stat. (1993), should be included as a marital asset.

[The other half of the appreciated value at the time of the petition is nonmarital.]

Florida Family Lawyers seem to have difficulty with common sense and identifying “half the appreciated value”.  Half the appreciated value is marital.

A typical case would have the marriage beginning about the same time as the purchase of the marital home.  My case had stipulated values beyond what would be available in a typical case.  My case had a stipulated value for the Fair Market Value of my home at the time of my marriage.  An eight year period of appreciation belongs to me as a premarital asset.