|
FAR’s official response to the article
Preserving Alimony Laws is Good for Families and Taxpayers :
A tenet of good reporting in our society typifies both objective and unbiased information sharing based in fact, not fiction.
In the Sunday, March 25, 2012 edition of Florida Voices, on the State Opinion Page, Mr. David Manz, Chairman of the Family Section
of the Florida Bar authored an article entitled Preserving Alimony Laws is Good for Families and Taxpayers. While I respect
Mr. Manz’s opinion, and as free individuals we are all entitled to have one, I would, however, like to clarify, correct and refute
certain key points that may have unintentionally or erroneously been stated in his article.
The title of Mr. Manz’ article states,
Preserving Alimony Laws is Good for Families and Taxpayers.
While I may agree that, in certain states, under certain conditions, preserving alimony
laws may be good for families and taxpayers, I would vehemently disagree that preserving Florida’s current alimony laws would be
good for Florida’s families and taxpayers. I would even go as far as to say that current alimony laws in Florida are harmful to
many families and taxpayers, with the ultimate financial benefit going not to the alimony payer, but instead to the family law attorneys
who represent their clients in court. Numerous articles have been published and horror stories have been written regarding
the atrocities surrounding orders of permanent alimony. Lives have been lost and families have been adversely affected for
generations by such abusive orders.
Mr. Manz states, “The Legislature faced down a threat from a special interest group called Floridians for Alimony Reform (FAR),
which sought to change alimony laws to the benefit of a small, one-sided group of Floridians.” As Spokesman and Co-Director for
Florida Alimony Reform, the largest alimony reform advocacy group in the country consisting of over 2100 members and growing, I can
emphatically state that it is inconceivable that I, or any member of the organization I represent ever threatened the Florida Legislature
in any way. However, what we have done by way of personal testimony, visits to legislators by their constituents, articles, and media
interaction and investigation, is to educate State Representatives and Senators of the need for alimony reform. In fact, the Florida House
of Representatives, by a convincing vote of 83-30, passed HB 549 for alimony reform. Unfortunately, for reasons only known to himself,
the Senate sponsor for alimony reform did not adopt the House bill (the lead bill), and also did not present a Senate version of the bill
that allowed for any significant change from current law; therefore alimony reform did not occur in the last legislative session.
A special interest group is defined as a group of persons working on behalf of, or strongly supporting a particular cause, such as an
item of legislation, an industry, or a special segment of society. Using that definition, Florida Alimony Reform is indeed a special
interest group, and while many alimony payers are indeed male, due to traditional societal norms of men primarily being the providers
of the family, I would also argue that permanent alimony affects the entire family, not just a small one-sided group of Floridians,
as stated by Mr. Manz. Furthermore, I would also like to point out that the Florida Bar, by definition and as stated by state legislators,
is indeed a special interest group itself; well financed, and highly influential in state politics.
Mr. Manz states that changing our alimony laws would increase the need and cost of litigation, put primarily women at risk, negatively
affect Florida’s children, and have disastrous effects. I would ask that by what basis in fact he makes this claim? In Massachusetts, where
alimony laws have just been reformed and implemented, people now have the ability to plan for their retirement. Litigants are settling
contentious cases that would have lasted for years and broken them financially. Furthermore, since the Massachusetts Alimony Reform act
of 2011 was signed into law, many people have been getting married who otherwise would not have. What is also interesting to note is that,
in Massachusetts, the Chief Justice of the Probate Courts, representatives of the Mass Bar, the Boston Bar, the American Academy of
Matrimonial Lawyers, and the Woman’s Bar who deal with abused and indigent women were all in favor of alimony reform.
What is typically pointed out by the Family Law Section is that poster child of a case where a spouse (typically the woman)
has been married a long time, raised her children, gets divorced and is now unable to support herself in the current workplace.
That type of scenario is understood, but in today’s economy, is certainly not the norm. Even if that situation does occur, typically
assets are split, and other sources of income such as social security are available to the divorcing spouse. That said, Florida Alimony
Reform is not looking to eliminate alimony awards, but instead, make rehabilitative and/or durational alimony the default as opposed to one
that is permanent in nature and allow for a balance with what is necessary to allow for both spouses to move on with their lives separately,
without having to be tied permanently to one another financially in a way that creates continued animosity and destruction for the entire
family.
Mr. Manz states that change is not necessary from a judicial, social or economic standpoint. We at Florida Alimony Reform do not share
his opinion, and the facts certainly do not back, or justify this opinion. Alimony reform is absolutely necessary from a social, as well
as economic standpoint as can be verified by the substantial number of cases now in Florida that are tell tail signs of financial abusive
orders that have destroyed family lives. The revisions that are being asked for reflect changing social and demographic patterns, as well
as the toll inflicted by a long-term economic slump. The only people that stand to win with an adversarial approach to divorce are certainly
not the spouses or the children, but instead, the litigating attorneys who charge high retainers and hourly fees with the promise of being
zealous advocates for their clients. Our current law is a litigious model that allows for arbitrary and unbridled discretion by judges,
and encourages continued litigation without end.
I would hope that in the future the Florida Voices becomes a little bit more discriminating with checking their facts before
publishing articles such as this. Simply put, the facts do not equate with what Mr. Manz has stated in his article. We, at FAR,
would welcome the opportunity to educate Mr. Manz, the Family Section officers of the Florida Bar, as well as the Florida legislature
in the continued hope of resolving our differences and creating fair alimony laws for the benefit of the families in our great
state of Florida.
Sincerely,
Alan Frisher, CDFA
Spokesman, Co-Director, Florida Alimony Reform
|
By Alan Frisher - FAR Co-Director 
