The landscape of Florida family law was fundamentally altered in 2023 with the passage of sweeping alimony reform. This new legislation, which eliminated permanent alimony, sent a shockwave through the legal community and left many individuals in the midst of divorce with profound uncertainty. The law’s effective date of July 1, 2023, created a critical dividing line. A key provision stated the new rules applied to all divorce petitions “pending or filed on or after” that date.
This created an immediate and contentious legal question: What exactly does “pending” mean? Does it mean a case where no final judgment has been entered? What if a judgment was signed on June 30, but a party filed a motion for rehearing days later? Is that case still “pending,” and should the new, drastic law apply retroactively?
This very question was the subject of the recent appellate case, Alfonso v. Alfonso. The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision provides critical insight into how courts are interpreting this pivotal moment in Florida’s legal history. The case also addresses a second, equally important issue in many Tampa dissolution cases: the specific requirements a court must meet before ordering a spouse to secure an alimony award with a life insurance policy.
This decision, and the dissenting opinion that conflicts with Tampa’s own appellate district, underscores the complexity of family law litigation. Navigating these issues requires a deep understanding of procedural rules and statutory interpretation, making the guidance of an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer more critical than ever.
The 2023 Alimony Reform: The Context for the Dispute
To understand the stakes in the Alfonso case, one must first understand the seismic shift caused by the 2023 alimony reform. For decades, Florida law allowed for permanent periodic alimony, typically in long-term marriages, which provided payments for the recipient spouse’s lifetime. The new law completely abolished this.
The changes were comprehensive and impacted nearly every facet of spousal support:
- Elimination of Permanent Alimony: This is the most significant change. Courts can no longer award permanent alimony.
- New Durational Limits: Durational alimony, which is paid for a set period, is now capped. The length of the award cannot exceed 50% of the length of a short-term marriage (under 10 years), 60% for a moderate-term marriage (10-20 years), or 75% for a long-term marriage (20+ years).
- Rehabilitative Alimony Plans: To receive rehabilitative alimony (money to gain skills or education), the requesting party must now submit a detailed and specific plan to the court.
- Retirement and Modification: The new law created a clearer path for alimony payors to seek modification or termination of their alimony obligation upon reaching normal retirement age.
This new statute was a game-changer. For anyone with a divorce petition filed before July 1, 2023, the question of which law applied was worth, quite literally, hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars over a lifetime. This is the high-stakes backdrop against which the Alfonso case was decided.
The Alfonso Case: A Race Against the Clock
The facts of the Alfonso case present a perfect test of the new law’s “pending” provision. The parties had a bench trial in April 2023. The central issue was the Former Wife’s request for permanent alimony, as she had suffered a debilitating stroke during the marriage that left her permanently disabled.
Here is the critical timeline:
- June 30, 2023 (Morning): The trial court entered its detailed final judgment, which awarded the Former Wife permanent periodic alimony based on her disability and the law as it existed that day.
- June 30, 2023 (Afternoon): The Governor of Florida signed the alimony reform bill into law.
- July 1, 2023: The new law, which eliminated permanent alimony, officially took effect.
- July 14, 2023: The Former Husband filed a motion for rehearing. His primary argument was that the new law should apply. He reasoned that because the time for a rehearing had not yet expired, the case was still “pending” on July 1, 2023, and therefore, the award of permanent alimony was now illegal.
The trial court disagreed. It denied the Former Husband’s motion, reasoning that the law in effect on the day the judgment was entered—June 30, 2023—was the correct law to apply. The trial court stated that filing a motion for rehearing does not delay the finality of the judgment itself.
The Former Husband appealed this decision, placing the question squarely before the Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA).
The Majority Opinion: “Pending” Means the Petition Has Not Been Decided
The 4th DCA affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that the new alimony law did not apply to the Alfonsos’ case. The court’s reasoning is a crucial lesson in legal procedure.
The Former Husband argued that a case is “pending” until all judicial labor is complete, and since a motion for rehearing was filed, the judge’s labor was not done. The appellate court rejected this argument.
It drew a sharp distinction between two different legal concepts:
- Finality for Appellate Purposes: A timely motion for rehearing does stop the clock for filing an appeal. For appeal purposes, the judgment is not “final” until the rehearing motion is decided.
- The Effective Date of the Judgment: The court held that this is a separate issue. Procedural rules about appeals do not automatically render a validly entered judgment ineffective.
The court found that the final judgment was entered on June 30, 2023. On that date, it disposed of all the issues in the Former Wife’s initial petition. Therefore, the petition was no longer “pending” on July 1, 2023.
The court also found support in the legislature’s own staff analysis, which stated the new law would be “applicable to any final judgment entered on or after July 1, 2023.” This judgment was entered before that date.
The court also addressed a minor procedural wrinkle. In February 2024, when the trial court denied the rehearing motion, it also entered an “amended final judgment.” However, this was only to correct a clerical error in the equitable distribution math. The court entered this amended judgment nunc pro tunc to June 30, 2023. “Nunc pro tunc” is Latin for “now for then,” and it means the order is to be treated as if it were entered on that earlier date. This legal tool essentially back-dated the correction, reinforcing that the final judgment was, for all substantive purposes, a June 30th judgment.
For the 4th DCA, the line was bright: if the final judgment was signed and entered by the clerk before midnight on June 30, 2023, the old law applied.
The Dissenting Opinion and the Conflict with Tampa’s District
This is where the case becomes particularly relevant for anyone seeking a Tampa divorce lawyer. The Chief Judge of the 4th DCA wrote a powerful dissent, arguing the exact opposite of the majority.
The dissenting judge argued that “pending” should mean that the trial court’s “judicial labor” is not yet finished. Because the Former Husband filed a timely motion for rehearing on the alimony issue, the trial court was still required to do the judicial labor of considering and ruling on that motion. Therefore, the alimony issue was still “pending” on July 1, and the new law should have applied, wiping out the permanent alimony award.
Most critically, the dissent pointed out that the majority’s new opinion directly conflicts with a case from the Second District Court of Appeal (2nd DCA), which is the appellate court that governs Tampa and Hillsborough County.
The dissent cited Woodward v. Woodward, a 2nd DCA case that, according to the dissent, reversed a permanent alimony award in a similar situation, finding the case was pending when the new law took effect.
This is known as a “district court split,” and it creates significant legal instability. It means that the Alfonso case (from the 4th DCA) sets a precedent that the judgment date is what matters, while the Woodward case (from Tampa’s 2nd DCA) suggests that post-judgment motions can keep the case “pending.”
Until the Florida Supreme Court resolves this conflict, the law is effectively different in different parts of Florida. This level of uncertainty makes it absolutely essential to have a Tampa divorce lawyer who is not only aware of the new statute but also understands the complex, conflicting case law interpreting its application.
The Second Major Ruling: Life Insurance to Secure Alimony
The Alfonso appeal was not just about the date of the alimony law. It also provided a crucial and practical ruling on a common issue in alimony cases: life insurance.
The trial court had awarded the disabled Former Wife permanent alimony. To protect that stream of income in case the Former Husband passed away, the court ordered him to maintain a life insurance policy with the Former Wife as the beneficiary.
This is a common request, but it is not an automatic right. The appellate court reversed this part of the order. The reversal had nothing to do with whether it was a good idea; it was reversed because the trial court failed to make the specific factual findings required by law.
The evidence at trial showed the Former Husband had a life insurance policy through his former employer as part of a severance package, but that this benefit was set to expire in just two months. The trial court ordered him to keep that policy and “any comparable replacement policy he has in the future.”
The appellate court held that this was a reversible error. Citing established precedent, the court reminded that before a judge can order a spouse to maintain or purchase life insurance to secure alimony, the court must make specific evidentiary findings on four key points:
- Availability: Is a comparable life insurance policy actually available to the paying spouse? (This can be a major issue if the payor is older or has health problems).
- Cost: What is the actual or estimated cost of the policy premium?
- Ability to Pay: Does the paying spouse have the financial ability to pay that premium in addition to the alimony and child support (if any) already ordered?
- Special Circumstances: Are there “special circumstances” that warrant the security? (A recipient’s permanent disability, as in this case, would almost certainly qualify as a special circumstance, but the court still must state it).
The trial court failed to do this. It made no findings about the cost or availability of a new, comparable policy after the husband’s severance benefit expired. This failure required the appellate court to reverse and remand the issue, meaning it was sent back to the trial court to hear evidence on these points.
What the Alfonso Case Means for Your Tampa Divorce
The Alfonso decision provides several critical takeaways for anyone navigating a divorce in Tampa.
1. The “Pending” Alimony Law Issue is Unsettled in Tampa. Because the 4th DCA’s Alfonso decision appears to conflict with the 2nd DCA’s (Tampa’s) Woodward decision, the law on this issue is in flux. This creates risk and opportunity, depending on which side of the issue you are on. It means that arguments about the retroactivity of the 2023 alimony law are complex and must be handled by a Tampa divorce lawyer who is prepared to argue the nuances of conflicting appellate opinions.
2. Life Insurance Is Not an Afterthought. This case is a powerful reminder that if you are seeking to have your alimony award secured by life insurance, you cannot just ask for it. You must be prepared to present evidence. Your Tampa divorce lawyer should be ready to introduce testimony or documents addressing the availability of a policy (such as a quote from an insurance broker) and the cost of that policy. Conversely, if you are the one who may be ordered to pay, your Tampa divorce lawyer will be prepared to challenge any request that fails to provide this evidence.
3. Clerical Errors vs. Substantive Rulings. The nunc pro tunc order was a key part of this case. It shows that courts can correct clerical errors or mathematical mistakes in a judgment without reopening the entire case. However, this is different from a motion to change the substance of a ruling (like the type of alimony awarded), which is much more difficult.
4. The Critical Importance of Professional Legal Counsel. This case perfectly illustrates why family law is so much more than “filling out forms.” The outcome of the Alfonso case hinged on complex, nuanced legal arguments about statutory interpretation, the definition of “pending,” the procedural effect of a rehearing motion, and the requirements for nunc pro tunc orders.
A layperson cannot be expected to understand these intricate legal doctrines, let alone the developing split between Florida’s appellate districts. Whether you are dealing with the fallout of the 2023 alimony reform, the equitable distribution of complex assets, or the proper way to secure a support award, the guidance of a knowledgeable Tampa divorce lawyer is indispensable. Your financial future depends on having an advocate who understands the law and the specific procedures required to protect your rights.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What did the 2023 Florida alimony reform law do? The new law, which took effect July 1, 2023, eliminated permanent alimony in Florida. It also created new caps on the length of durational alimony, added new requirements for rehabilitative alimony, and provided a clearer process for modifying alimony upon retirement.
What does it mean for a case to be “pending”? This is the central legal question in Alfonso. The 4th DCA held that a divorce petition was no longer “pending” after a final judgment was entered, even if a motion for rehearing was later filed. A dissenting opinion, however, argued the case was still “pending” until that post-judgment motion was resolved, creating a conflict with Tampa’s appellate district.
What is a nunc pro tunc order? “Nunc pro tunc” means “now for then.” It is a legal order that applies retroactively to a past date. In the Alfonso case, the court used it to correct a clerical error in the final judgment, making the correction effective as of the original judgment date of June 30, 2023.
Why did the court reverse the life insurance order? The appellate court reversed the order because the trial judge failed to make the required specific findings. The law requires a court to take evidence and make findings on the availability of the insurance, the cost of the premiums, the payor’s ability to afford it, and the special circumstances justifying the order.
Is a spouse always required to get life insurance to secure alimony? No, it is not automatic. A judge can order it, but only after weighing the specific evidence on the four-part test (availability, cost, ability to pay, and special circumstances). A Tampa divorce lawyer can present evidence on these factors to either support or oppose such a request.