Florida Alimony Reform 2023: A Complete Guide to the New Law

Florida Alimony Reform 2023: What Changed and What It Means for Your Case

On July 1, 2023, Florida's spousal support law changed more in a single afternoon than it had in the previous half-century. CS/CS/SB 1416 rewrote Section 61.08 from the ground up: lifetime alimony disappeared, the categories were redrawn, the math was capped, and the rules for ending an existing obligation were loosened in favor of paying spouses heading into retirement. Two years and several appellate opinions later, the contours are coming into focus.

This guide walks through what the reform actually does, how Florida appellate courts are interpreting it in 2024 and 2025, and what divorcing spouses should expect at intake. If you would like an attorney to read your facts and tell you what range of outcomes is realistic, the firm offers an evaluation through the [client qualifier](/qualifier).

The Headline Change: Permanent Alimony Is Gone

The signature feature of the 2023 reform is the abolition of permanent periodic alimony. For decades, a Florida spouse coming out of a long-term marriage could be ordered to pay alimony until death, remarriage of the recipient, or a successful modification petition. That category no longer exists for new cases. Four forms of alimony remain on the books under Section 61.08:

• **Bridge-the-gap alimony**, a short-duration award capped at two years and intended to help a spouse transition from married life to single life by covering identifiable short-term needs.
• **Rehabilitative alimony**, which requires a written, specific plan to redevelop existing credentials or to acquire the education, training, or work experience needed for self-support.
• **Durational alimony**, the new workhorse category, designed to provide economic assistance for a defined number of years tied to the length of the marriage.
• **Lump-sum alimony**, awarded as a one-time payment (or a fixed payment stream) when periodic alimony is inappropriate but a spouse still has a documented need that another form of support cannot reach.

For any final judgment entered after July 1, 2023, durational alimony is the only category capable of running for a meaningful number of years, and it is now subject to hard outer limits.

Marriage Length Tiers and the Cap on Duration

The reform formalizes three tiers of marriage length and caps how long durational alimony can run as a percentage of that length:

• **Short-term marriage**: at least 3 years but less than 10 years. Durational alimony cannot exceed 50% of the marriage's length.
• **Moderate-term marriage**: at least 10 years but less than 20 years. The cap rises to 60% of the marriage's length.
• **Long-term marriage**: 20 years or more. The cap is 75% of the marriage's length.

Marriages of fewer than three years are not eligible for any form of durational alimony at all. The length of the marriage is measured from the date of the wedding to the date the dissolution petition was filed.

The cap is not absolute. A court can extend the term beyond the percentage above when the requesting spouse proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that an extension is necessary after applying the statutory factors. In practice, those extensions are uncommon and require detailed findings.

A second cap applies to the monthly amount: durational alimony cannot exceed the recipient's reasonable need, and in no event can it exceed 35% of the difference between the parties' net incomes, whichever is less. That second-prong cap is a real change. Pre-reform case law allowed awards that put the recipient in a stronger monthly cash position than the payor; the 35% net-income-gap rule is designed to prevent that result going forward.

The Two-Step Framework: Need vs. Ability to Pay

Florida courts have always begun the alimony analysis with the recipient's need and the payor's ability to pay. The 2023 reform tightened that framework and made it explicit. The Sixth District Court of Appeal addressed it head-on in *Shouman v. Salama*, 2025 WL 751023 (Fla. 6th DCA March 10, 2025), reversing a wife's alimony award because the trial judge conflated the two steps.

In *Shouman*, the appellate court restated the framework cleanly:

• **Step one** asks whether the requesting spouse has an actual need and whether the other spouse has the ability to pay. Both numbers are based on the parties' net incomes after deducting reasonable expenses.
• **Step two** asks what type of alimony is appropriate and how much should be awarded, applying the statutory factors in Section 61.08(2).

The trial court in *Shouman* had treated the wife's earning capacity and her share of equitable distribution as reasons to reduce her calculated need at step one. The Sixth DCA held that this was error. A spouse's ability to work and the value of property she receives in the divorce can be considered at step two when the judge picks a category and a dollar amount, but they do not erase a need that is otherwise documented on the financial affidavits. The court also reversed the trial judge's ability-to-pay finding on the payor's side, because the payor's monthly "expenses" were in fact paid by his business and therefore did not reduce his actual disposable income.

The lesson is procedural and consequential: judges must show their work at each step, and trial counsel should be alert to findings that smuggle step-two reasoning into the step-one calculation.

The Statutory Factors

When the court reaches step two, Section 61.08(2) directs the judge to consider, among other things, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living established during it, each party's age and physical and emotional condition, financial resources, earning capacities and employability (including the time required to acquire education or training), contributions to the marriage (including homemaking, child care, and support of the other spouse's career), responsibilities to minor children, the tax treatment of any award, and all sources of income available to either party, including income produced by investment of any asset held by that party.

Each factor supporting or limiting an award must appear in the written findings. A judgment that recites the factors generically without tying them to the evidence is reversible on appeal, and that is the lever many recent reversals have turned on.

Standard of Living and Net Incomes

The standard of living established during the marriage remains a factor, but the reform changed how it is operationalized. The court is no longer trying to keep both spouses at the marital standard of living after a divorce. Instead, the standard of living is a reference point for evaluating reasonable need and a reality check on whether claimed expenses are inflated or austere.

The math now lives in net incomes. Each spouse's gross income is reduced by mandatory taxes, FICA, health insurance, mandatory retirement contributions, and preexisting court-ordered support. The 35% net-income-gap ceiling is computed against those net figures, which matters at the margin: when the payor has heavy pretax benefits, the net-income spread compresses and the ceiling moves with it.

Spousal support paid by the obligor is also deducted from the obligor's gross income and added to the recipient's gross income for the child support calculation. The Fourth DCA's recent *Smith v. Chevillet*, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D159 (Fla. 4th DCA January 8, 2025) reversed a child support award precisely because the trial court failed to flow in-kind spousal payments through the gross-income worksheet.

Supportive Relationships: Modification Under Section 61.14

Florida Statute Section 61.14 has long allowed a court to reduce or terminate alimony when the recipient enters a "supportive relationship" with a non-marital cohabitant. The 2023 reform made that pathway more accessible. A supportive relationship is a financial relationship, not a sexual or romantic one: the question is whether the new partner provides the recipient with the economic equivalent of a remarriage by sharing housing, expenses, accounts, or assets.

The statute lists factors the court considers, including the extent the parties hold themselves out as a couple, whether they pool finances, the duration and apparent permanence of the arrangement, and whether either has supported the other or their children. The burden is on the spouse seeking modification, but unlike the old framework, the court is not limited to terminating the obligation; it can reduce alimony to reflect the reduced need created by the cohabitation.

For recipients, this raises a practical caution: a stable post-divorce relationship that walks and quacks like a marriage can put existing alimony at risk even though no remarriage occurred. For payors, it is one of the most powerful modification levers in the new law.

In *Woodward v. Woodward*, 400 So.3d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025), the Second DCA confronted how the supportive-relationship analysis interacts with the reform's effective date. The court reversed a February 2023 final judgment that had awarded permanent alimony, holding that a judgment is still "pending" while on direct appeal and that the July 1, 2023 amendments therefore reached the case. On remand, the trial court was instructed to reapply the new need-and-ability framework, use the recipient's net income rather than gross, and reconsider the alimony claim in light of allegations of adultery and a possible supportive relationship. *Woodward* is the cleanest authority so far on retroactivity through the appellate window.

Retirement Modification

Pre-reform, a paying spouse who wanted to retire faced an uphill modification battle. The 2023 amendments to Section 61.14 reallocated the burdens in a way that genuinely favors retirees.

Under the new structure, an obligor can petition for modification on the ground that he or she has reached normal Social Security retirement age, or the customary retirement age for the obligor's profession, and has taken demonstrable steps toward retirement or actually retired. The obligor's initial burden is a preponderance of the evidence that the retirement has reduced or will reduce the ability to pay. If the court makes that finding, the burden shifts to the recipient to prove, by a preponderance, that the obligation should nevertheless not be reduced or terminated.

The statute then directs the court to make written findings on a defined set of factors, including the obligor's age and health, the nature of the work and the customary age of retirement in that field, the obligor's motivation and likelihood of returning to work, the recipient's needs and ability to contribute, the economic impact of a reduction or termination, the assets each side accumulated before, during, and after the marriage, income earned during and after the marriage, Social Security and retirement benefits available to each side, and the obligor's compliance with the existing order.

A petition may be filed in reasonable anticipation of retirement, but no more than six months before the planned retirement date, with modification effective on the actual retirement. That six-month window is a planning tool: a payor can file, get a hearing, and have an order in hand that takes effect the day he or she leaves the workforce.

Rehabilitative Alimony Requires a Real Plan

The reform did not change rehabilitative alimony's core requirement, but recent case law has made clear that courts will not paper over a missing plan. In *Smith v. Chevillet* the Fourth DCA reversed a rehabilitative award because the rehabilitation discussion happened during the judge's informal "open discussion" at trial, not through admitted evidence, and the final judgment lacked a specific, defined plan. The court restated the rule from Section 61.08(6)(a): rehabilitative alimony funds the redevelopment of previous skills or credentials or the acquisition of education, training, or work experience needed for appropriate employment, and the order must spell out what that rehabilitation looks like.

Recipients seeking rehabilitative support need a credible, evidence-backed plan: which credential, from which school, by when, at what cost, with what expected income lift. Payors who want to defeat a rehabilitative claim should aim at the plan, not just the dollar amount.

Practical Takeaways at Intake

A few things are worth keeping in mind when evaluating an alimony case under the new law.

• **Marriage length and the net-income gap drive almost everything.** Count the years from wedding date to filing date and pull together a current pay stub and tax return for each side. Without those, the picture is fog.
• **Documentation of need is the work product.** A financial affidavit has to reflect real, current, reasonable expenses supported by bank statements and bills. Inflated expenses get cut on cross; the case is built on the numbers in the affidavit, not the story around them.
• **Imputation is back in the spotlight.** When a spouse is voluntarily under-employed, courts will impute income based on work history, qualifications, and the local labor market. Recent appellate decisions have reversed imputation findings that lacked labor-market evidence.
• **Supportive relationships are a live consideration.** If a recipient cohabits, the payor has a more accessible modification path than before. A serious post-divorce relationship should be discussed with counsel before anyone signs a lease.
• **Retirement is plannable.** If you are within six months of a real retirement age and have an alimony obligation, the new statute is friendly to a proactive petition; waiting until the income drops can leave you owing arrears.

Most alimony engagements at the firm start with a [services overview](/services/alimony-and-support) and a flat-fee evaluation; you can review the firm's [pricing](/pricing) before booking time.

What This Article Does Not Cover

Several adjacent topics matter to a complete divorce but live in different parts of the statute and are intentionally left out of this guide.

• **Lump-sum alimony in depth.** Lump-sum awards remain available but are fact-specific and usually tied to property settlements; they deserve separate treatment.
• **Attorney's fees.** Section 61.16 governs fee awards between spouses, and a fee award is not alimony.
• **Temporary support and pendente lite relief.** Temporary orders entered during the case are governed by their own standards, where judges have broad discretion but still need competent, substantial evidence to support each line item.
• **Child support.** Child support is calculated under Section 61.30 using a guideline worksheet. Although alimony flows into the child support calculation as an adjustment, the doctrines are separate, and child support is not capped or scheduled the way durational alimony is.

Each of these topics will be covered in its own article. If your case involves more than one, an evaluation will sequence the issues so the calculations build on each other in the right order.

---

*Attorney Advertising. This article is general information about Florida law as of 2026 and is not legal advice. Reading or acting on it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed Florida attorney about your specific situation.*