Pablo Alfonso v. Jessica Gordon Alfonso

No. 4D2024-0698 (Fla. 4th DCA May 7, 2025) · District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District · May 7, 2025 · No. 4D2024-0698

Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a permanent alimony award, holding that the dissolution petition was not pending when Florida's amended alimony statute took effect on July 1, 2023, because the final judgment had been entered before that date. The court reversed the requirement that the former husband maintain life insurance for the former wife because the trial court made no findings regarding the availability and cost of insurance, ability to pay, or special circumstances supporting the security requirement. The court otherwise affirmed the rulings on the amount of alimony and attorney's fees.

Holdings

  1. The amended section 61.08 did not apply. The initial dissolution petition was no longer pending when the statute took effect because the trial court had entered a final judgment disposing of all issues on June 30, 2023; a timely motion for rehearing did not alter the effective date of the dissolution judgment.
  2. The trial court erred in requiring Former Husband to maintain Former Wife as beneficiary of a current or comparable future life-insurance policy without making specific findings concerning the availability and cost of insurance, Former Husband's ability to pay, and the special circumstances warranting security for the alimony obligation.
  3. The court affirmed these rulings without further comment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Florida's amended alimony statute, effective July 1, 2023, applied to the dissolution petition because the case remained pending while a timely motion for rehearing was unresolved.
  2. Whether the trial court erred by requiring Former Husband to maintain Former Wife as beneficiary of a current or comparable future life-insurance policy without making findings concerning the policy's cost and availability.
  3. Whether the permanent alimony award was supported by competent substantial evidence and was excessive.
  4. Whether the award of attorney's fees based on need and ability to pay was erroneous.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (24)

  • Fawcett v. Weaver, 121 Fla. 245, 246 (Fla. 1935)(followed)
  • Barnett v. Barnett, 743 So. 2d 105, 106–08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(followed)
  • Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768, 770–72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(distinguished)
  • Gaines v. Sayne, 764 So. 2d 578, 585–86 (Fla. 2000)(followed)
  • Stockdale v. Stockdale, No. 1D2024-1371, 2025 WL 1062621, at *2–*3 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 9, 2025)(followed)
  • Maxfly Aviation Inc. v. Cap. Airlines Ltd., 843 So. 2d 973, 975–76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(followed)
  • Hamblen v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC, 312 So. 3d 218, 220–22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)(distinguished)
  • Karkhoff v. Robilotta, 309 So. 3d 229, 236–37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)(followed)
  • Woodward v. Woodward, 400 So. 3d 861, 863–64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)(disagreed with)
  • WFTV, Inc. v. Wilken, 675 So. 2d 674, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(cited)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…