Florida Family Lawyer Blog

In the state of Florida, including the city of Palm Beach Gardens, an alimony agreement reached as part of a divorce settlement acts as a binding contract on the parties involved. An example of such an agreement would be where one spouse agrees to pay the other spouse $2000 a month in alimony for a certain period of time or until that spouse remarries. When parties enter into such an agreement in connection with a divorce, and the circumstances or the financial ability of either party substantially changes, either party may apply to the circuit court for an order to increase or decrease the alimony amount. However, it is well-established that the statutory right to petition for modification of an alimony award may be intentionally or impliedly waived. This waiver to modify alimony terms may be expressed within the agreement or through interpretation of the agreement as a whole.

Last month, the Palm Beach Post included an editorial “Divorced from reality,” discussing a 4th District Court of Appeal case, Craissati v. Craissati, that applied modification and waiver of alimony law to reach an absurd result. In 2001, a husband and wife divorced with a final judgment for dissolution of marriage, which incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement, including a provision for alimony. Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, the former husband agreed to provide 8 years of alimony in the amount of $2000 a month to his former wife. However, the agreement contained a clause providing for termination of alimony. That clause explicitly stated that any “future alimony payments owed to the Wife ends upon the death of either party, remarriage, or cohabitation with another person other than the parties’ child. ‘Cohabitation’ shall be defined as the Wife living with another person (not including the parties’ child) for a period of 3 (three) consecutive months or more.” The agreement then contained a waiver clause, stating that the terms and nature of alimony could not be modified by either party for any other reason except for the husband’s proven decline in financial condition.

In 2005, the former wife was sentenced to 9 years in prison in connection with criminal convictions for driving under the influence, leaving the scene of an accident and causing serious bodily injury. Thereafter, the former husband filed a petition for modification of alimony. Because the husband could only modify the terms of the agreement under the conditions previously mentioned, his lawyers got creative – and the 4th DCA bought their argument. To get around his agreement’s modification waiver, the former husband argued that the incarcerated wife was cohabitating with her cell mate, and during an evidentiary hearing, the wife stipulated that her cell lifestyle met the alimony agreement’s definition of “cohabitation.” The court agreed with the husband’s argument, and the wife’s alimony was cut off! To read the full case, click here.

What should we take away from this absurd result? Perhaps this case stresses the importance of proper drafting of settlement agreements. If you are going through a divorce, consult an attorney for advice about your settlement agreement.