[pilotpair]

Congratulations to Gov. Scott for his veto of this bill to end lifelong alimony (among other things).

To me, the worst part of this bill is that it would have been retroactive! No existing divorce settlements should have been impacted. If you're going to change the law, it should only apply to future settlements.

[chopchop0]

Seems reasonable....

Scott could not "support this legislation because it applies retroactively and thus tampers with the settled economic expectations of many Floridians who have experienced divorce," he wrote. "The retroactive adjustment of alimony could result in unfair, unanticipated results."

Read more: Florida Gov. Scott vetoes bill that would end permanent alimony in state | Fox News

[doggiebus]

This guy wants to get re-elected. I wonder if this bill had come in front of him his first year in office, if he would of made the same choice.

[bmw335xi]

I was in support of this bill because lifetime alimony makes no sense.

[sholomar]

and this is a good thing? Lifetime alimony makes no sense, and always favors the woman. Divorce law reform is what's needed.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by stockwiz

and this is a good thing? Lifetime alimony makes no sense, and always favors the woman. Divorce law reform is what's needed.

I agree, why should a spouse get lifetime alimony... it really doesn't make sense. When a person hits 65 it should end right there. It should also be based on the spouse's employment/asset situation.

[randian]

Originally Posted by pilotpair

To me, the worst part of this bill is that it would have been retroactive! No existing divorce settlements should have been impacted.

Why not? Women retroactively raise their alimony all the time. Alimony must always go up, never down?

[West of Encino]

It probably would have been the first US state to ban lifetime alimony and it might have been protested nationwide, had the Governor not vetoed the bill. The Governor either has some serious male guilt issues or is just wants re-election.

Lifetime alimony, and in general, is outdated and should be abolished nationwide, especially in Florida, Colorado, and California.

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I was in support of this bill because lifetime alimony makes no sense.

Without knowing the full terms of a couples mediated settlement agreement or property settlement agreement there is no way to make any kind of logical assessment if lifetime alimony makes sense.

What if one party gave up their half of a family business or half of a $10 million property in exchange for $4000 a month for life? How could you possibly end the alimony and have it equitable?

[coloradoalimony]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Without knowing the full terms of a couples mediated settlement agreement or property settlement agreement there is no way to make any kind of logical assessment if lifetime alimony makes sense.

What if one party gave up their half of a family business or half of a $10 million property in exchange for $4000 a month for life? How could you possibly end the alimony and have it equitable?

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.