[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by coloradoalimony

There are two kinds of alimony settlements: modifiable and non-modifiable (non-modifiable is sometimes called contractual, they are the same thing.) The retroactive part of the bill would ONLY apply to modifiable settlements. If you have a non-modifiable settlement, the bill would NOT have done anything to it. It is a contract that cannot be changed.

In a situation where someone gives up an enormous amount up front in exchange for alimony, they would almost always make the settlement NON-MODIFIABLE. If they didn't, they were simply dumb.

Any settlement that is decided by a judge is modifiable. This means EITHER party can later ask to have alimony changed. If someone wanted non-modifiable alimony that would never change, they should have negotiated for it up front and signed a contract.

So what we have is a bill being vetoed because people don't want to be held to their modifiable agreement, which says alimony CAN change.

I hope Scott is voted out over this.

If there is a modifiable life time alimony order then why would this bill be needed. You can file a petition to modify an order at pretty much any time.

[coloradoalimony]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

If there is a modifiable life time alimony order then why would this bill be needed. You can file a petition to modify an order at pretty much any time.

If is very rare, almost unheard of, for a Florida court to lower alimony amounts or terms. A petition must be made on the grounds the *original settlement* that the amount is now unconscionable. However, for a recipient to get an increase, they must simply argue that the payer can afford it.

The bill did NOT automatically lower or reduce anyone's alimony. The payer would still have to hire a lawyer, go to court, and argue that the amount was unconscionable, but the standard of judgement would be the new, more reasonable standard, not the ridiculous, archaic standard current being used.

Imagine someone being jailed for 25 years for smoking pot. Then, smoking pot is made to be a misdemeanor. The prisoner will petition to have their sentence reduced. There is legal precedent for this.

Again, if the alimony recipient wanted a GUARANTEED payout, they had that option. Their greed most likely prevented them from choosing that.