A 2025 Florida appellate decision, Edman v. Edman, serves as a powerful cautionary tale for anyone considering a divorce. The case is a perfect storm of legal errors and procedural catastrophes: parties representing themselves, a trial with no court reporter, a judge who has since passed away, and a final judgment that was found to be riddled with fundamental legal mistakes.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment that had awarded a wife “permanent alimony,” even though the case was filed and heard after the new 2023 law had eliminated it. The appellate court reversed this, finding it was an “error on the face of the judgment.” The court also reversed the alimony award because the trial judge failed to make the mandatory findings of “need” and “ability to pay.” Because there was no transcript and the original judge was deceased, the appellate court had no choice but to send the entire case back for a new evidentiary hearing.
This case is a critical lesson on three separate fronts: the strict, non-negotiable nature of the new alimony law, the severe danger of proceeding without a court reporter, and the new, complex legal battleground for spousal support in long-term marriages.
The First Fatal Error: Awarding “Permanent Alimony” After Its Abolition
The most significant legal error in Edman was the trial court’s award of “permanent alimony.” This was an error of law that was obvious from the case timeline.
Here is the critical sequence of events:
- May 2023: The Husband filed his petition for dissolution of marriage.
- July 1, 2023: The new, sweeping alimony reform law took effect. This law eliminated permanent alimony as a permissible award in Florida. The new law explicitly stated it applied to all initial petitions for dissolution that were “pending” or filed on or after this date.
- November 2023: The parties, appearing pro se (without lawyers), had their final hearing.
- After the Hearing: The trial court entered a final judgment awarding the Wife “permanent monthly alimony.”
The appellate court reversed this as a fundamental, “facial error.” Because the Husband’s petition was filed in May and had not been finalized, it was, by definition, “pending” on July 1, 2023. Therefore, the trial court was legally prohibitedfrom awarding permanent alimony. The amended statute, which only allows for temporary, bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative, or durational alimony, was the only law the court was authorized to apply.
This ruling confirms a bright-line rule that any Tampa divorce lawyer must now follow: for any case not finalized before July 1, 2023, permanent alimony is off the table.
The Second Fatal Error: Failure to Make Mandatory Alimony Findings
Even if the new law had not been an issue, the appellate court found a second, independent reason to reverse the alimony award. The trial court failed to “show its work” by making the specific, written findings of fact that the law demands.
This is a critical protection for all litigants. A judge cannot simply pick a number out of thin air. To award any type of alimony, a court must first make “a specific, factual determination as to whether the party seeking… alimony has an actual need for it and whether the other party has the ability to pay… alimony.”
After establishing this “need and ability” foundation, the court must then consider a list of other factors to determine the type and amount of alimony, including:
- The duration of the marriage.
- The age and health (physical and emotional) of each party.
- The financial resources of each party, including assets and debts.
- The earning capacities and educational levels of each party.
- The standard of living established during the marriage.
- The contributions each party made to the marriage (including homemaking and childcare).
In the Edman case, the trial judge’s order was sparse. It stated the wife’s age (57), her history as a housewife (unemployed since 2007), the marriage length (37 years), and the husband’s gross income ($67,200).
The appellate court ruled this was not enough. The judgment contained no findings on the Wife’s “actual need” (her monthly expenses) or the Husband’s “ability to pay” (his net income after his own expenses). It also failed to discuss or weigh any of the other mandatory factors. This failure to make the required findings is a “facial error” and requires reversal. This is a common shortcut that any experienced Tampa divorce lawyer will look for when reviewing a judgment for a potential appeal.
The Procedural Nightmare: No Transcript and a Deceased Judge
What makes the Edman case a true cautionary tale is the procedural nightmare that unfolded on appeal. The Husband’s appeal almost failed before it even began, for two reasons that are entirely preventable.
1. The “Pro Se” Mistake: No Court Reporter The parties appeared at their final hearing without a Tampa divorce lawyer (pro se). A common and devastating mistake in pro se hearings is the failure to hire a court reporter.
When a party appeals a judge’s decision, they are claiming the judge made a mistake based on the evidence. To prove this, the appellate court must have a transcript (the word-for-word record) of the trial to review.
Without a transcript, a powerful legal doctrine called the “presumption of correctness” kicks in. The appellate court mustassume that the trial judge’s factual findings were correct and that there was sufficient evidence presented at the trial to support the ruling. This rule single-handedly kills the vast majority of appeals.
Mr. Edman was only saved by the “facial error” exception. His appeal was not that the judge misweighed the evidence(which would require a transcript to prove). His appeal was that the judgment itself was legally and procedurally flawed on its face. The appellate court did not need a transcript to see that “permanent alimony” was illegally awarded or that the mandatory findings of “need” and “ability to pay” were physically absent from the order.
2. The Unprecedented Complication: The Judge’s Death Florida’s rules of procedure have a “backup plan” for when no transcript is available. A party can “prepare a statement of the evidence… from the best available means” (e.g., their own recollection). However, this statement is not automatically accepted. It must be “filed with the lower tribunal for settlement and approval.”
This means the original trial judge must review the statement and any objections and then “approve” a final, official version. In this case, a horrific and tragic circumstance occurred: the senior judge who presided over the hearing passed away before he could rule on the Husband’s statement.
The Husband asked the new division judge to approve it, but she correctly refused. She was not at the trial and had no way of “confirming the details.” The appellate court had no choice but to reject the Husband’s unapproved statement.
This cascade of procedural failures—no lawyer, no court reporter, and the tragic death of the judge—left the appellate court with no record to review. The only reason the Husband’s appeal succeeded was the “facial error” exception. This is a one-in-a-million shot that no one should ever rely on.
The Concurrence: A “Back Door” to Lifetime Support?
Perhaps the most important part of the Edman decision is the special concurring opinion. While the majority opinion focused on why the trial court’s order was wrong, the concurrence focused on providing a roadmap for the trial court on remand. It is a critical piece of analysis for any Tampa divorce lawyer handling a long-term marriage under the new law.
The concurring judge pointed out that while “permanent alimony” is gone, the legislature left a critical “escape hatch” in the law: “exceptional circumstances” that can extend durational alimony.
Under the new law, durational alimony is capped. For a long-term marriage (20+ years), it cannot exceed 75% of the length of the marriage.
However, the concurring judge highlighted a key provision. A court can extend the term of durational alimony (even, in theory, for the recipient’s lifetime) if it finds by “clear and convincing evidence” that it is necessary. To do this, the court must consider several new factors:
- The extent to which the recipient’s age and employability limit their ability to be self-supporting.
- The extent to which the recipient’s available financial resources (e.g., their share of equitable distribution) limit their ability to be self-supporting.
- The extent to which the recipient is mentally or physically disabled and rendered incapable of self-support.
- The extent to which the recipient is the caregiver to a disabled child common to the parties.
The concurrence is, in essence, sending a strong signal to the trial judge and the parties: “You cannot call it ‘permanent alimony’ (that’s illegal). But this case involves a 57-year-old woman who has been out of the workforce since 2007. This is a prime candidate for an ‘exceptional circumstances’ argument. On remand, if the Wife’s Tampa divorce lawyerpresents clear and convincing evidence on these new factors, the court may be able to award ‘durational alimony’ for a term that far exceeds the standard cap, potentially even for her lifetime.”
This is the new legal battleground. The fight is no longer over permanent alimony, but over extending durational alimonybased on these “exceptional circumstances.”
The Final Issue: “Double-Dipping” with a Pension
The Husband also argued that the trial court was “double-dipping” by awarding the Wife both permanent alimony and 50% of his pension.
This is a valid and complex legal argument. “Double-dipping” is a term for counting the same dollar twice. Here, the Husband’s pension is a marital asset subject to equitable distribution (the Wife gets a share of the “pot”). But that same pension is also the source of income that the Husband would use to demonstrate his “ability to pay” alimony.
The law is clear that a court cannot, for example, award the Wife 50% of the pension asset and also use 100% of the pension income to calculate the Husband’s alimony payment. The appellate court, because it was already remanding the entire case for a new hearing, directed the trial court to take proper evidence on the pension’s value and terms, and to address this “double-dip” issue in its new, comprehensive, and legally-compliant final judgment.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale
The Edman case is a perfect storm of what can go wrong in a divorce. It demonstrates that representing yourself is fraught with peril. It proves that failing to hire a court reporter can be a fatal, case-ending mistake. And it confirms that the new alimony law is complex, full of new legal battlegrounds, and will be strictly enforced by appellate courts.
The law is not a “do-it-yourself” project. The rules of procedure, the mandatory findings, and the complex financial formulas are not optional. A failure on any of these points can, as it did in Edman, invalidate the entire final judgment and force everyone to start over from scratch, incurring more fees and more emotional turmoil.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a divorce, especially one involving a long-term marriage or complex assets, do not make these same mistakes. Contact our office for a consultation with an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer who can protect your rights, navigate the new laws, and ensure your final judgment is built to last.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is permanent alimony gone in Florida? Yes. For any divorce petition filed, or “pending,” on or after July 1, 2023, Florida courts can no longer award “permanent alimony.” The Edman case confirms that any case not finalized before that date is “pending.”
What is a “facial error” in a divorce judgment? A “facial error” is a legal mistake that is obvious from just reading the final judgment, without needing a trial transcript. In Edman, awarding “permanent alimony” (which is illegal) and failing to include the mandatory findings of “need” and “ability to pay” were both facial errors.
What happens if I don’t have a court reporter at my trial? You will almost certainly lose your right to appeal. Without a transcript, the appellate court must presume the trial judge’s factual decisions were correct. Your appeal will only survive if you can prove a rare “facial error.”
Can I still get lifetime alimony under the new law? You cannot get “permanent alimony.” However, the new law allows a judge to extend the term of “durational alimony” under “exceptional circumstances,” which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. These include factors like age, disability, or being the caregiver for a disabled child.
What is “double-dipping” with a pension? “Double-dipping” is an illegal practice where a court counts the same asset twice. For example, awarding a spouse 50% of a pension (as an asset) and also using 100% of that pension’s income stream to calculate the payor’s “ability to pay” alimony. A court must account for the division of the asset before calculating the income for support.