In Taylor v. Taylor, the 2d DCA reverses an award of durational, rather than permanent, alimony. The identified problem essentially was twofold, but really comes down to an absence of statutory findings. There is a lack of findings necessary to support the use of durational rather than permanent alimony, and the amount awarded. The difficulty that the appellate court faced is that the trial court did not expressly decide that permanent periodic alimony was “inappropriate”, and it did not find that there was “no ongoing need for support on a permanent basis.” Although these determinations may sometimes be implicit within the findings made under subsection 61.08(2), in this case the findings gave no guidance as to why permanent alimony was inappropriate. Given that the Wife does not have a history of full-time employment with benefits and that the court actually imputed income to her, the 2d DCA could not assume that the trial court made a proper, implicit finding that she had “no ongoing need for support on a permanent basis.”
The court also points out that there may be occasions for an award of nominal permanent alimony in combination with an award of durational alimony. The length of an award of durational alimony can be extended only “under exceptional circumstances.” Especially in case like this one where the trial court awards durational alimony for significantly less than the statutorily permitted length, an erroneous prediction of the future by the trial court at the time of the final judgment could have serious consequences for the party in need of support. Until the law has developed so that there is certainty as to whether the circumstances to extend durational alimony are or are not comparable to those permitting a modification of permanent alimony, a nominal award of permanent alimony in conjunction with an award of durational alimony may be a reasonable safeguard.
So, the FJ in this case was reversed and remanded only to the extent of the award of alimony. On remand, especially in light of the fact that the house has sold and the Wife’s employment may have changed, the trial court is authorized to consider additional evidence relevant to the four-step determination in resolving the issue of alimony. The steps are explicitly discussed in the opinion (and there are really five steps, because step one is actually two steps combined, as discussed in the opinion – I recommend reading the full opinion).