Interview with Andrea Reid Esq on Florida Alimony Reform in 2022

Sydney Mitchell:

Hi. My name is Sydney Mitchell.

Matthew Brickman:

Hi, I’m Matthew Brickman, Florida Supreme court mediator. Welcome to the Mediate This! Podcast where we discuss everything mediation and conflict resolution.

 

Matthew Brickman (00:10):
Aright so I am sitting here with Andrea Reid, she is an attorney that I’ve known Andrea how long have we known each other.

Andrea Reid Esq. (00:20):
Oh God, probably 15. 15 years, maybe more than that.

Matthew Brickman (00:23):
Yeah. I think you were probably one of the first attorneys that I met, and I’ve been doing this for 15 years. Um, but, you know, just you, just some of the things that I know about you and, and, and whatnot, cause I’ve known you forever, is first off, um, for anyone that does care. Uh, you went to law school at fsu.

Andrea Reid Esq. (00:41):
Oh, nos. Yeah.

Matthew Brickman (00:42):
Yeah. Fsu. Um, you went to law school, you graduated in oh five. You’ve been in practicing since 2006, correct?

Andrea Reid Esq. (00:48):
Correct.

Matthew Brickman (00:50):
Um, and then just some of, I’m, I’m just gonna, I’m looking here, uh, on your website, just some of your crowning achievements. Um, and, and I’m not gonna read all of them cuz there’s a lot of them.

Andrea Reid Esq. (01:02):
Um, Oh,

Matthew Brickman (01:03):
Thanks. Because you’ve, you know, um, you’ve been very heavily involved. But as it pertains to what we’re talking about today in the alimony reform, 2022 State of Florida is, um, you’re a me you’re a member of the executive council, the legislative committee in the Florida Barr Family Law section. Um, you have committed yourself to families. You’re a guardian ad litem. Um, you work, um, with domestic violence. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, families, divorce, paternity. You’ve served in numerous leadership positions within the family law section of Florida Bar. You’ve lobbied the Florida legislature on the issue of alimony, child support, time sharing, and equitable distribution. Um, and so I, yeah, I wanna, I wanna talk about, you know, how, how that has worked. Um, and then you remain at the forefront of the family law, uh, section of the Florida Bar. Um, your app, you keep apprised, updated on statutes, potential legislative considerations, uh, that may affect your clients as well as families in the state of Florida. Um, and I didn’t, I didn’t know this. You’re a native of Florida.

Andrea Reid Esq. (02:07):
Oh, born and raised. Absolutely. No.

Matthew Brickman (02:10):
Wow. That’s a rarity. Most people are transplants.

Andrea Reid Esq. (02:12):
Um, yeah, it is. It’s, it’s a rarity in my generation, but my kids’ generation, it’s becoming quite normal. Yeah. They’re really all Florida babies now.

Matthew Brickman (02:20):
Yeah. I mean, my kids are 24, 26 Florida babies.

Andrea Reid Esq. (02:24):
Um, yeah.

Matthew Brickman (02:25):
But, um, um, and then you were appointed the, uh, by administrative order, uh, of the Supreme Court to serve on the mediator qualification board, which I’m a mediator, so that’s pretty awesome. Yeah,

Andrea Reid Esq. (02:37):
That was one of my favorite appointments. That was awesome. Really?

Matthew Brickman (02:41):
Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, We may have to talk about that another, another episode because Yeah, that’s, that’s only because due to Covid, and I’m just gonna digress here for a second. Due to covid, they reduced the qualifications for mediation, which I thought was just completely insane. Instead of saying, Hey, existing mediators step up and do mentorship, they reduced the qualifications. And I think they should have raised them, not reduced them, and enforced mediators like myself, who I do, I usually do about 11 mentorships, 1112 mentorships a year. I’m like, I’ll mentor anybody. Um mm-hmm. <affirmative>. But yeah, so that’s a whole nother conversation. Oh yeah. About the mediator qualifications. Um, and you know, you’re very involved with the Florida Association of Women Lawyers, which I think is very important because of all this alimony reform. Um, and, you know, the family law section, the Florida Bar, you’ve co-chaired stuffed. So let me just ask you a question on the, on this Florida alimony reform thing. In the beginning, were you a proponent of alimony reform as it was being thought about? Talked about, you know, were you for it in concept or in theory?

Andrea Reid Esq. (04:02):
So I would tell you that depends on what you consider the beginning, right? So 10 years ago, maybe over 11 years ago when the first alimony reform movement happened and the bill and, and we got the concepts of short term marriages, moderate term marriage, long term marriages, you know, uh, bridge the gap out, which

Matthew Brickman (04:21):
Clearly defined

Andrea Reid Esq. (04:23):
When those, when that statute was generated, um, I was all for that. And I, and I really support what was in that statute. And I really still think that it’s, it’s pretty efficient. Took some time for the courts to catch up with it and took some time for us to get some appellate guidance on it. But nevertheless, that kind of reform was good reform. Um, when you talk about reform going forward, we talk about, you know, the elimination of permanent alimony, right? So are we, am I for that? Yeah, sure. Because at some point, enough is enough. Um, but I think that you have to be able to look at each circumstance very specifically. So Matt, you know this, you never, every family has their own dna, right? You get, you get behind, you get behind a family in mediation, or you, you see a family be represented wherever it is.

Andrea Reid Esq. (05:14):
And every family has a nuance that that’s what makes them the smiths. That’s what makes them the Joneses. That’s what makes them the reads and the bricks. Right? And if a court can’t consider the totality of those things, then we have a problem in family law. Because when you put it all together, you have to let the court decide those things. So when it comes to this modification of permanent alimony, this elimination look the word permanent in the statute, it’s really a misnomer, isn’t it? Because it’s, it’s modifiable. You know, the PI case tells us that it’s, you know, modifiable upon the correct re you know, the, the, the appropriate retirement age. It’s been modifiable, it’s been modified in all sorts of cases.

Matthew Brickman (05:55):
Unless, unless, and, and, and I’ve done agreements, cuz as a mediator, I negotiate. And I, and for me, I,

Andrea Reid Esq. (06:02):
Oh, you’re gonna, you’re gonna bring up the unicorn, right? The unicorn agreements that says Yeah,

Matthew Brickman (06:07):
Well, the unicorn agreement. And, and look, it, it doesn’t matter if it’s permanent, doesn’t matter if it’s durational, doesn’t matter if it’s bridge. The, it does not matter what type. If in the negotiations the parties agree to add the word non-modifiable, then it is not by contract. Correct. Correct.

Andrea Reid Esq. (06:31):
Absolutely.

Matthew Brickman (06:32):
And what a lot of people don’t understand is if you’re not part of that discussion and that negotiation, they may have done unequal distribution of marital assets and liabilities in order to trade a non-modifiable component. And so you can’t just say, Oh, well, you know, the Smiths, they just had non-modifiable permanent, they got screwed. Well, they may have negotiated something else. And that’s what’s difficult when people talk to friends or they’re part of groups and they start sharing stories, they don’t know the ins and outs that created. Because I’ll tell you, a couple of years ago, Andrea, um, right after, it was the day after the family law section, Florida Bar Family Law Conference up in Orlando, right? Mm-hmm. <affirmative> the very next day, and this was back when Rick Scott was doing the alimony reform before he went off to the Senate, we had the alimony reform group meet in Orlando. So I was like, Hey, I’m already up here, I might as well go. And what was really interesting about that group was that group, they were all there sharing stories. And it was really odd to me as a mediator sitting there because they were all complaining about their agreements, not court orders, their agreements. Well, I don’t know what was negotiated to create that non-modifiable component, right? Yeah.

Andrea Reid Esq. (07:55):
What went into the sausage, right? I mean, and that’s the point. And Matt, you as a, and you as a mediator have that unique experience of seeing, sometimes there’s a trade, you know, sometimes there’s a trade of retirement, sometimes there’s a trade of time sharing. Sometimes there’s a child support tipping. Sometimes there’s a, an agreement on a calculation that you wouldn’t otherwise use, and that’s why you did this one thing. It’s all interrelated and interconnected. And if we don’t pay attention to the, the totality of those inner workings, every, every family has their own dna.

Matthew Brickman (08:32):
Well, and, and, and, you know, as, as an attorney, and for me as a mediator, you know, it’s, you know, every single mediation is, is identical in the fact that we go through the PEACE acronym. We start with parenting, equitable distribution, child support, alimony, um, or no, sorry, parenting, distribution, alimony, child support, everything else. Right? Right. But then, yes, there are nuances where we may not go to equitable distribution. We may need to then go to alimony before we figure that out. Or we may not be able to finish the parenting because it depends on who’s getting the home in equitable distribution. So yes, we have a format, but every family is unique. Um, you know, it’s like, you know, every day, do I mediate? Yes. But every single one has their nuances. <laugh>. Right. Which is, which is fun, because you know what? It never gets old.

Matthew Brickman (09:28):
It’s not like going into the office every day doing the same old thing. No, I am mediated. But it’s different because of its nuances. Exactly. So, Exactly. So, so let me just read to you just a couple of the emails, cuz I’m on a 300 plus person email chain from the people that were four alimony reform. What was interesting was this, So, so let me just read to you first, which was interesting. So this was, this was a quote, um, from, um, the Alimony reform group treasurer Michael Bueller. Okay. He’s a Coral Gables businessman. This is, uh, online, this is on Florida phoenix.com that anyone can just google this and find it. But he actually said the concept of retroactivity, because, you know, that was the big thing. That was the reason why Governor DeSantis vetoed was because of this retroactivity. We’re gonna talk about this in a second, but what’s interesting is, first off what he says, and then the responses from the people in the group, and I’m going, well, that doesn’t make much sense, but he says, quote, the concept of retroactivity is a red herring put forth by the family loss section.

Matthew Brickman (10:48):
That’s you, uh, the family loss section and first wives and husbands. This is a club, I guess. Um, and so, you know, it, it’s a red herring, so, you know, Oh, it’s, you know, the retroactivity is disputed. Well, so, okay, well, if it’s disputed, then, and if that’s what the governor veto the reason why, well then it wouldn’t have, you know, if it’s not retroactive, well then all the people in this group shouldn’t be upset because it wouldn’t affect him. Right. Like, why are they upset If it, if it wouldn’t affect him? Well, wait a second. If he’s saying it’s a red herring, but then all of his group is upset, well then maybe it’s not a red herring. So this is some of the emails that these people have sent. So one person said, um, actually wrote to the governor, Governor Ron, I’m shocked and overwhelmed that you would overrule house I senate super majorities on such an important bill.

Matthew Brickman (11:41):
I was afraid that you would follow Rick Scott’s selfish precedent for his own daughter. You are not the man and leader I thought you were. Um, someone else wrote, Hello everyone. Like many of of you, I’m extremely disappointed and would’ve expected a different result from DeSantis. He is part of a political corrupt machine we have today that is destroying this country. Another person wrote, I suggest you, um, I suggest you do not need to defeat DeSantis. That is rather missing the point. You need to defeat the family loss section of the Florida Bar. Or the people behind the Florida, uh, loss section. FLS did not win by logic or being right or just they did not even try. DeSantis is a lawyer. DeSantis was amply informed by the alimony reform movement. DeSantis knows there’s no legal argument. That is why his short veto statement was counterfactual and made no sense.

Matthew Brickman (12:44):
It is when someone makes no sense, you have to listen most carefully because they are telling you something very important. Pay attention. Warning, it may be a painful message. I suggest fls one by raw political power held over a politician. How did the FLS pull this off? What power does FLS wield and how do they wield it? How can citizens thwart change, avert, seduce, persuade, win over circumvent, overcome this power? That is the question. And one other person equated this to, uh, Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, uh, and said, using the governor’s reason, Lincoln could not have freed the existing slaves. Only abolished it going forward. Candidly undone fighting. We’ll try to negotiate a settlement with my ex. Um, now I as a mediator, um, and just as a person have often thought of alimony reform going, Oh yeah, it’s sort of like the emancipation proclamation. Well, sorry, slaves, you that are already slaves, you’re still slaves. But anyone from here forward where you’re free in theory that makes sense except that slavery wasn’t a law and then a law came and then made a law illegal. Like laws or laws. Oh,

Andrea Reid Esq. (14:07):
Well, let’s not forget that slavery was also involuntary. Correct. And an agreement. Is it a voluntary contractual relationship? So it’s just not really analogous at

Matthew Brickman (14:19):
All. Yeah. So, so based on all of that, Andrea, what’s going on

Andrea Reid Esq. (14:27):
<laugh>? Well, you know,

Matthew Brickman (14:29):
Well, well you know, what, you know, start with, cuz originally you were up in Tallahassee speaking and dealing with this, correct?

Andrea Reid Esq. (14:38):
Yeah.

Matthew Brickman (14:39):
Yeah. So talk about, talk about your involvement there and, and whatnot.

Andrea Reid Esq. (14:43):
So my involvement is essentially just as a practitioner, um, who’s really interested in making sure that the law that I’m practicing is good law. That I’m able, you know, let’s, for example, like I keep this at my desk, right? This is the statue book. This is my red book. It’s got everything I need in it. It’s the, you know, chapter 61, chapter 39, all of those things. I have an innate interest as a practitioner to make sure that those statues are well written and that they can be understood by everyone. Because when they’re poorly written, when they’re not understood by everyone, it costs people a lot of money. Sort

Matthew Brickman (15:20):
Of a radiation agreement. And I say that all the time. I want clear because I want the people to understand it. They can obey it. I wanna judge to be able to understand it because he can in he or she can enforce it.

Andrea Reid Esq. (15:31):
Yeah. And clarity is everything, right? Everything and clarity gives us some predictability. Clarity gives me, as an attorney the ability to look at my client and talk about likely outcomes because I know what this statute means. So that really leads all my involvement with legislation in Florida with, with family law legislation. And when this particular bill, so this bill that has circulated is, um, it’s been here for a while. It’s been, it’s been back and forth for a while. This version this year, um, was less than perfect. It was confusing, it was contradictory in and of itself. Um, it had some great stuff in it though. Okay. It did. So if you think about the bill, you think about it in six different parts. That’s how I’ve done it for myself. And, and it’s funny, I was, I was telling you earlier, I have this notebook and this notebook has the bill, and the bill is divided, and I’ve got the bill divided into the six parts. So, you know, part one of the bill was the chapter 61 0 8 revisions, right? And that was, um, well it starts with 61 0 4 6. And that was, hey, we’re gonna redefine, we’re gonna redefine income. Okay? So right now, when you talk about income for the purposes of alimony, you’re talking about all sources available to someone as income, which

Matthew Brickman (17:09):
Is, which happens one talks about, I says all of available income,

Andrea Reid Esq. (17:13):
All sources of available income. So section one of Senate bill 1796 creates a definition of income called active gross income. And in summary, that means that that’s all of the income that you earn from actually working. Okay? And then in this definition, it says that for the purposes of determining what business income is, then you’re gonna go ahead and you’re gonna look at the IRS’s publication 9 25. Okay? So hello forensic accountants, come on in and tell us what that means. So now we’re inviting more forensic accountants into the case. Okay? So, so what we’re talking about here is we’re gonna take your active gross income, which is your salary, your wages, your bonuses, your commissions, your allowances, your overtime, your contracts, all of those things. And that’s all we’re gonna consider as your income.

Matthew Brickman (18:12):
Okay?

Andrea Reid Esq. (18:12):
Currently, when I look at your income, I’m considering, did you invest in real estate? Is that real estate spinning off income to you? Yes. That may be considered passive income, not active income. Yeah. Is, are you the recipient of a trust and is the trust paying you money? Are you about dividend,

Matthew Brickman (18:32):
Like

Andrea Reid Esq. (18:33):
Same thing, dividends. Yeah. So, so active. Is that what you actively accrue by your business labor? But passive is all that stuff that just comes to you by way of good investment, sound investment, smart thinking, or, or by the way of good fortune, you know, trust, um, inheritance annuities, lottery. Right? So, so what, why is this important? Because this definition in this first section of active income, it comes into play much later and you’ll see in one of another, one of the other sections. So off the bat, this bill changed the

Matthew Brickman (19:12):
Definition of income,

Andrea Reid Esq. (19:14):
Definition of income. It kept the old definition in there. Okay? The old definition’s still in there, but now we’re gonna have a new definition of active income and that becomes a problem later on. Okay? Then you move into the second, second section of the bill. And the second section of the bill is where you come into these concepts of what is alimony and what are we gonna do with alimony. So remember 61 0 8 in statute is what, what we do with existing alimony awards. We’re gonna talk about 61 14 later, and those are modifications. But 61 0 8 is okay, new case. Let’s talk about how we’re gonna determine alimony. So when you get into this provision, um, so many things, but, um,

Matthew Brickman (20:04):
I light it for us <laugh>, if possible. <laugh>,

Andrea Reid Esq. (20:08):
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So hold on, let me just let, let me tell you something. I have charted and, and reviewed this thing forward and backwards and, and if you had caught me during the session, I could have probably told you line by line word for word. But essentially this does, let’s talk about the most significant thing that this section does. And that’s takes, this is what you’re hearing. This is, okay, no more permanent alimony, Right? Right. Um, we’re gonna,

Matthew Brickman (20:36):
Everyone that, everybody wanted that

Andrea Reid Esq. (20:39):
Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, no more permanent alimony. So we’re gonna do, uh, the length of a durational ward. It’s not gonna exceed 50% of the length of a marriage, Right. Lasting three to 10 years, or 60% the length of a marriage lasting between 10 and 20 or 75% the length of a marriage lasting 20 years or longer. Okay.

Matthew Brickman (20:58):
Which that actually gives us more direction than we currently have.

Andrea Reid Esq. (21:02):
Correct. Which is exactly, exactly. Now it gives us direction, but it still gives the court, there were still provisions in here for discretion. Correct. And those were added super late in session. Okay. So those were not originally intended to be in there. Those actually came about after a lot of effort explaining to the legislature that you’ve, you’ve stripped the court of discretion, um, to make exceptions for certain situations. Right. You know, with, with different families and different family members. So, um,

Matthew Brickman (21:33):
Yeah. You can’t just have one size fits all.

Andrea Reid Esq. (21:35):
You just can’t. Right. And, and you know, what’s the greatest example of that that I actually read about this weekend? If you look at the cost of rentals in Palm Beach and Broward County, even Miami date, they are so significantly higher than any other spot in the state. Ok? Right? So, so your family in Palm Beach County is paying maybe three, four, $500 more than another family in Monroe County or in, you know, Manatee or, or whatever other county. You wanna talk about Brevard. And, and that’s why this is important. How do you put a stamp on the amount that you’re paying when there’s not a consistent amount of expenses across the board? Right.

Matthew Brickman (22:21):
And we still have to get through need versus ability to pay. Correct? Correct,

Andrea Reid Esq. (22:27):
Correct. So in this situation now, no, no. Under the bill not so much need and ability to pay. Yes. It was almost a foregone conclusion that there was a need and an ability to pay. And then there becomes a percentage calculation, which is 35% of the difference between the party’s net incomes or the need. Okay. So you can establish the need or you’ve gotta do 35% of the, whichever is the lesser number is the number that has to be paid.

Matthew Brickman (23:03):
Well, that’s interesting because as a mediator, when we negotiate things, and I’ve had forensics on the case that, you know, um, you and I both use the same software, family law software mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So when we go into the analysis and we’re looking at their net incomes, the, the, the, you know, and, and what’s interesting is usually, like even with the last bill in 2016 when they created the calculation, but then it got vetoed, the calculation to help guide us as practitioners for determining alimony was pretty much what the judges were doing. They sort of like reverse engineered it. Like they’re sort of going like, this is basically what the courts were doing. And so doing that, that 35%, I do that a lot, you know, the, with attorneys, when we’re looking at, you know, if you can get past need and ability, then we’re looking, Okay, well what do, what are your net incomes? Okay? We try to get you between like 35 and 45% because, you know, alai can’t equalize the income. So we’re not going 50 50, you know, can’t create a savings component, but we’re looking at that 35. So it’s interesting that they put that in the bill because that’s what we’ve been doing. Cuz that’s generally what the courts were doing. So they sort of, I guess were sort of memorializing what judges were doing. Is that right? Yeah.

Andrea Reid Esq. (24:15):
And let me, well, sort of, but not really. These numbers came out of thin air, honestly.

Matthew Brickman (24:23):
Yes.

Andrea Reid Esq. (24:23):
And so what happened was we had to reverse engineer to see how that would affect each person. Got it. This number was slapped down and it wasn’t always 35% and it, it landed at 35% eventually. But what’s important to know is that when, when, when negotiating this number of 35%, there was a tremendous amount of math that was done to say, if I have a, if, if the wife has been a stay at home mom for 15 years and the wife is going to now make minimum wage and the husband is earning this and he’s earning that, where does that leave the wife? What number is she gonna have on a monthly basis? Now we went and looked at what are the price of gas in that area? What is the, what is the rental price in a particular area? What is the cost of living? And is 35% going to even meet that need Now trying to evaluate that across the state, across the board there, there was no mathematical rhyme or reason behind it.

Matthew Brickman (25:24):
Have judicial discretion.

Andrea Reid Esq. (25:26):
Correct. Like, you have to be able to account for the fact that, you know, maybe this person lives in a community where rent and housing is significantly less. Right. You know, maybe this person lives in a community where, where housing is significantly more, maybe these children need to be in this particular school district and the price of homes in this school district are much higher. But if the judge gets the opportunity to look at moving into that school district versus putting the children in a school district where the parents have to pay private school tuition, maybe you put all that together and start considering something. So anyway, this 35% is a thin air number. Okay. And we had to reverse engineer it to figure out what it would do. Um, but the other thing to think about in that 35% is how many times do you run into a situation where you’ve got to imput income to a spouse who hasn’t been working for decades so

Matthew Brickman (26:19):
Many times?

Andrea Reid Esq. (26:20):
Okay. So I think that one of the misunderstandings in this bill was the fact that you and I know well, that imputation of income is alive and well, and it’s a serious issue that we deal with at all terms, but I don’t think this statute really considered that because if you’re really looking at it, and you’re talking about 35% of the difference between this income and that income, what if the, what if the, the spouse who’s receiving support, what if their income is zero? Right? And you’ve gotta do a differential between this number and the spouse who’s zero. Now at an early phase in the case, you’re gonna have to work on hiring vocational evaluators to determine what that income is gonna be. Yep. And so you’re really looking at the differential is, is a problem, you know, it, it’s gonna create even more litigation. Um,

Matthew Brickman (27:12):
And Okay. And, and, and Dan, let me just stop you there, because one of the things that I find very interesting is all of all the people opposed to alimony reform are, are all just screaming that, oh, you know, all this litigation, litigation of the attorneys are trying to block it. Common sense says attorneys would want this, They would invite this because boy would that create a lot of money for, for attorneys, forensic accountants, I mean by, by doing a reform, by going forward without considering everything, by, you know, making it retroactive, all that does is create so much money for attorneys. And so a lot of ’em are like, Oh, the attorneys are blocking it. You know, and, and it’s all about money. If it were about money, you guys, I’m sure as practitioners would’ve been like, You know what, go and do it. Who cares? We’ll fight for this all day long. We are gonna make so much money off you people. But that, but that isn’t the attitude. But that is, I think, what’s being projected on our industry.

Andrea Reid Esq. (28:25):
Yeah. And, and let me put it this way, if it was really about the money, I can’t tell you how many hours I gave to this bill this year. It would’ve been a lot better for me to let this puppy fly and work. Right. And, and, and here’s the thing. I mean, I think that that’s a, a catchy slogan. I think it’s a, it’s a, you know, it’s, you know, greedy lawyers, greedy family lawyers, all of those things. But here’s the really important part to remember is that we all work on both sides of the issue with both parties. Yeah. Like you’re, you, you rarely find an attorney who says, I will only work with the peus spouse and I will only represent the guy who’s gonna pay the alimony or the woman who’s gonna pay alimony. And that’s my only client versus I only represent the ICU spouse, the one who has no money. And I’m just, I mean, remember we always represent both sides of this story, and it’s not blood sport for us. Okay. Like, doing this is not blood sport <laugh>. Well, and,

Matthew Brickman (29:19):
And I’ll, and I’ll put it out there that as of the date and, and this, I don’t even, I don’t think you and I have ever even had this conversation, but as of today, right now, as we sit here today, um, I’ve been doing mediation for 15 years and I have worked with 658 lawyers. That’s a lot of attorneys that I have had the pleasure of mediating with. Yeah. On a short list. Andrea, there’s five I refuse to work with because they are, they are the poster children of what people have that idea of their sharks. They’re they’re going, they’re aggressive, they’re gonna, they’re nasty. And, and, and, and there’s five, What’s interesting, and I’ll put it out there, I don’t care. My podcast, they’re in Miami dad, all five of them <laugh>, all five of them are in Miami. Dad, I will tell you, the 658 attorneys like yourself, like, you know, I mean wonderful human beings.

Matthew Brickman (30:22):
And I say this all the time, I, you know, you know, everybody hears it on the podcast. They, you know, family attorneys are not like the ambulance chasers. They’re not, you know, they’re, they’re, they’re, they’re human beings. Most of them have families, a lot of them have gone through divorce. Um, and they understand this. And most of them, most of the attorneys I work with are very decent, wonderful human beings. They’re just doing a job. But they’re wonderful human beings. They’re not, you know, they’re not the pawn scum of the earth that, you know, you’re like, ah, charity turn it. That doesn’t exist in, at, at least in my experience with the 658 attorneys not in the state of Florida that I’ve dealt with. Um, well actually, and actually I’ve dealt with attorneys even in other states. Cause I’ve done virtual mediations out of state and even outta country. So, I mean, so, so yeah, I mean, I think it’s, I think it’s a great, um, it’s a great media label to just, you know, it’s just a general slippery slope argument. They’re just, you know, they’re just awful. They’re just in it for the money,

Andrea Reid Esq. (31:33):
You know,

Matthew Brickman (31:36):
Let it go. I’ll litigate for you people all day long and clean up with the legislature messed up.

Andrea Reid Esq. (31:42):
And honestly, the appell, the appellate, uh, the appellate work that would’ve had to come out of this bill was going to be so significant. And the sad part for me is, you know, I spoke with a client who was upset with me for being involved in this alimony reform the way that I was. And I, I had to explain that, look, at the end of the day, a bad bill creates bad results. Yeah. A bad statute creates bad results. So you may win a battle, but at the appellate level, if this thing is uncon, you’re gonna lose the war and the legislature’s not going to pay you back for the bad words that were in here. And so, I, I am, you know, I had to respectfully say, I am sorry that you’re disappointed in the work that I’m doing here, but I like with kids, you might thank me later because you might go through a very, very trying process and get there.

Matthew Brickman (32:37):
Right. So for three,

Andrea Reid Esq. (32:39):
All right, so that was all right. Third section, I believe. Okay. Third section is the part. And we’re doing like big broad strokes here because Yeah,

Matthew Brickman (32:50):
Yeah,

Andrea Reid Esq. (32:50):
Yeah. The third section had to do with kids, right? So the third section,

Matthew Brickman (32:55):
Why they keep throwing in, I mean, I guess it’s just a political thing. Like, like, hey, we’re gonna build roads and inside of building roads we’re gonna do teacher salaries. Like what? Like, you know, the politicians throw stuff in there and then, then unfortunately you end up throwing out the baby and the bathwater

Andrea Reid Esq. (33:15):
And

Matthew Brickman (33:15):
Yeah.

Andrea Reid Esq. (33:15):
Well, right. And that was one of the reasons for one of the vetos before. But, but look, I mean, premise

Matthew Brickman (33:20):
Versus the presumption of 50 50. And, and look, a lot of people were, you know, based on DeSantis passage of father’s rights and parental rights and all that, a lot of people were hopeful, including myself, going, Yeah, look, we’re gonna get a 50, 50 times sharing. The problem though is when you make one mistake with ev, with, with the bill, then it just negates everything, even the good pieces.

Andrea Reid Esq. (33:49):
Yeah. And so, well, you know what, and here’s the thing about this, remember that it is already the public policy of the state of Florida that each parent is getting substantial time with the children. Now child is

Matthew Brickman (34:02):
Entitled to frequent and continuing contact. And it already says there is no presumption for or against a mother or father when creating or modifying a parenting plan. Granted the new bill, I think it says there, it would strike that, that that presumption it would say there, um, what does this say exactly? You’ve got it in front

Andrea Reid Esq. (34:21):
Of you. So basically it says, unless otherwise provided in this section or agreed to by the parties, there is a presumption that equal time sharing of a minor child is in the best interest of the minor child who has common to the parties. Yes. So what you are saying, what is said in this very sentence is that I’m not thinking about Johnny Smith or Jane Doe. I am not thinking about Mary Todd or Susie Brookman. What I’m saying is that Mary Todd, Susie are all the same children and equal time sharing is good for all of them. Okay. Now

Matthew Brickman (34:56):
That was his dad maybe be an alcoholic or drug dealer, or whether or not he was convicted of domestic violence or what

Andrea Reid Esq. (35:03):
About regardless of whether or not dad even knows the child. Yeah. Okay. Let’s talk about a paternity situation where perhaps dad has had no relationship with this child, you know, for whatever reasons, good, bad, or indifferent, Right? The

Matthew Brickman (35:15):
Unicorn. But it happens. I mean, I had one, I had one where, where, where dad finally files the child’s eight, the child has no clue who this guy is. Wait, All of a sudden it’s 50 50. Like there’s gotta be reunification therapy and all that, you know, all the things that you, we, but

Andrea Reid Esq. (35:32):
Just all of those, all of those good steps that, that we’ve asked the court to do. Now, one of the really, really interesting parts about this language is that, um, it doesn’t tell us where and how you apply the factors in 61 13. Okay. So it doesn’t say, So the, the way that it went before was that it was in the best interest of the child. You know, there was a, um, you look to the factors to determine the best interest of the child, right? Right. You went to the factors in 61 13 to determine the best interest of the child. Now we have a sentence and a statute that says it is in the best interest of the child to have, You

Matthew Brickman (36:19):
Don’t even have to apply the factors.

Andrea Reid Esq. (36:21):
No, technically you don’t.

Andrea Reid Esq. (36:25):
Right? So think about that. And so, and so, you know, as this was going, we were trying to say, Okay, if this is what you wanna do, please understand that what you’re doing is you’re shifting the focus outta those factors. Those factors may or may not still apply. What we were gonna have to do was get, what was gonna have to happen was this was going to have to evolve in the lower courts, come up to the appellate level and the accords. Were gonna have to somehow say, Oh, you don’t get around using the factors. But if this thing says equal time sharing is in the best interest of the minor child, how or why do you even get to an evaluation of what’s in the best interest of the child?

Matthew Brickman (37:07):
Well, and, and, and so as you’re explaining, um, it is making more sense to me as a person, as a practitioner, as a mediator, all of it. But what’s interesting that I have said for the past decade with the three attempts with alimony reform, where they have stuck this in, there is, it is its own monster that needs to be in a separate bill. You want 50 50 time sharing, make it a separate bill because it needs the attention and the detail to iron it out. You can’t fix time sharing with a sentence.

Andrea Reid Esq. (37:40):
Right.

Matthew Brickman (37:41):
Right. And it, and, and oh yeah. It needs to be, I mean, both look later at the end. I’ll tell you my, and in in summary, I’ll give you my opinion of alimony as far as time sharing goes. It needs to be its own bill. I’ve been saying that for 10 years. It needs to be its own bill. Get it out of alimony. Stop trying, because you know what? Either you’re me like Scott vetoed alimony because the presumption premise of 50 50, that was his, his get it out of there. Get it out. Because there are so many pieces, just like you’re showing us with alimony. There’s so many pieces that we’re having to redirect going back to, cuz you and I always in mediation are always going okay. And I mean, I always tell parents, you know, just like you get a WWJD bracelet, like what would Jesus mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, you know what is in the, you know, what is in the child’s best interest, best interest of the child, best you should always be best interest of the child. Not best interests of mom and dad, best interests of the child. But what you’re saying is that sentence, what they tried to do really negates best interest of the child just has 50 50 rubber stamp Smith bricking and

Andrea Reid Esq. (38:55):
Everybody. Yeah. And Matt, but I’m gonna be honest with you, I don’t know that that was really the intention of the legislature when they put this in here. I don’t know that they wanted to circumvent the factors. I know that they all care very much about what best for kids. Um, I think that it was well intentioned, but the problem was it wasn’t well written. And so it was gonna create more problems than it was gonna solve. And, you know, it could have been improved upon. It just wasn’t, um, you know, follow through to another provision. So like, if we’re in the same section, that section three, there’s provision starting at, uh, like line 5 88. And this is the part about the relocation. So this is really interesting for purposes of the modification of a parenting plan and time sharing schedule a parent’s permanent relocation from a residence more than 50 miles from the primary residence of the child to a residence within 50 miles. So a parent who lived out of 50 miles, who’s now coming into 50 miles, is, is presumed to be a substantial material and unanticipated change in circumstances, determination of the best interest of the child shall be made by evaluating all of the factors, blah, blah, blah. Okay. Okay.

Andrea Reid Esq. (40:14):
Cool. Makes sense. Right?

Matthew Brickman (40:16):
But it’s contradictory because

Andrea Reid Esq. (40:20):
61, 13 0 1,

Matthew Brickman (40:21):
Right? Yeah. Be because one says, Hey, we’re gonna look at the factors. The other one says, No, you know what, there’s a presumption that 50 50 is in the best interest. So now you’ve got the bill reading in different ways. Correct. But

Andrea Reid Esq. (40:34):
Look, more importantly, it doesn’t belong here. So the, the, the language that I just read you comes in the sentence just before the, the statute. That’s just before the part of the statute that says, here’s how we determine best interest. Now this is relocation, like what you’re saying here. This is about modification. Yeah. And, and so this was in the wrong spot. It was also contradictory to the relocation statute because under that situation, you would have to fix re you would have to still do you, or don’t you have to file a petition for relocation because the relocation statute remained intact and this was suddenly an exception that wasn’t addressed in the other statute. So, so well intentioned, poorly placed

Matthew Brickman (41:16):
Well, but, but if it was, and I, I still, I’ll still go back. If it was separate from an alimony reform bill, it would get the attention it needs to iron out those details because they would really then be debating all the ins and outs like they would with the alimony. They’d be debating the ins and outs with, Okay, well this is fine. Well wait a second. I mean, they would have someone there like you, that goes, Okay, great, great idea, but you know, that this contradicts with this, so how do we make these line up? And then you could find out what is the intent and help direct them properly. Correct.

Andrea Reid Esq. (41:48):
Right. Exactly. And that’s, I mean, and listen, and that’s the amazing part of what the family law section is there to do. Like, remember everybody in this section is, it’s a volunteer organization. Like, I don’t get paid a dime for the time that I spent reading this statute or going up there to talk. I I don’t get paid to do that. Right? But at the end of the day, we wanna see good law, so we’re happy to participate in wordsmithing. And there’s been some great house members and representatives who have invited us to the table and said, you know, maybe in the end we ultimately disagreed, but at least we were invited to the conversation to improve the language so that we could improve it for everybody. And, and we really appreciate when that happened.

Matthew Brickman (42:27):
So lemme ask you this before we go onto the second half of your, of your six. Let me just, lemme just ask you this because you, you, you brought up a good point. And then, um, this is, this is another, and I don’t know if this is just more misinformation just to slander and, you know, the family law section or whatnot, but there’s this, I mean, I, I, I know all these email chains and even, you know, um, I just read, hear about it everywhere that, you know, the Florida loss section has so much money and your lobbyists are so powerful that you are able to gain the ear of the governor. Whereas other little groups, if they can’t raise enough money, well their lobbyists don’t get to come in. And so you have power to then direct the governor. Is that true?

Andrea Reid Esq. (43:22):
Is that that’s not true. It’s not true. I mean, you’re

Matthew Brickman (43:25):
Volunteer, everyone else’s volunteer, But, but there’s this whole thing that, oh, the, the Florida barbed has powerful lobbyists that get in where other people can’t.

Andrea Reid Esq. (43:37):
Well, let’s not forget that the, one of the lobby teams that was representing the alimony reform folks this year was the family law sections former lobbyist, One of the lobbyists who represented the alimony reformers this year, who brought everybody to the table, who did a lot of work on their behalf, was the former lobbyist of the family loss section for at least a decade.

Matthew Brickman (44:07):
Really?

Andrea Reid Esq. (44:09):
Yes. And so everybody was well represented in Tallahassee on these issues. Everybody had a seat at the table, Everybody had a voice in the crowd. And, um, at the end of the day, it, it turned out the way it turned out, because we’ve got a smart governor who read this himself in all likelihood and made this decision, I mean, this is not the governor that’s in my pocket or the section’s pocket. Come

Matthew Brickman (44:36):
On, I’ll tell you. But I’ll say, based on these emails, Oh, you know, he’s a dictator because we had, I mean, so so many of these emails that, you know, people are saying, we had a bipartisan house and Senate that voted the will of the people, and DeSantis came in as a dictator and overruled the will of the people. That’s what these people are saying. And, and then they saying,

Andrea Reid Esq. (45:05):
And that’s okay.

Matthew Brickman (45:06):
But then they’re saying

Andrea Reid Esq. (45:06):
That’s okay. That, that’s their perspective.

Matthew Brickman (45:08):
Well, but look, but they’re blaming the lobbyists and the power of the Florida bar and the family law section and being able to go in, give him information, bend his ear, inform him. And I think a lot of people think that DeSantis, like a lot of politicians maybe in Washington just aren’t reading. And they’re like, Okay, well what should I do? Okay, well, I’m a lawyer and you’re lawyer. So outside with lawyers, that’s what a lot of these people are saying.

Andrea Reid Esq. (45:38):
I don’t, I don’t think that that’s this governor. I think we have a Harvard trained attorney as governor. And he, he had all, everything. So let’s put it this way. When, when the bill made it out of the legislature and every, everybody sent their info. I mean, the petition from the alimony reformers received widespread support was hugely signed. Right. The, the, the first wide sent in their information, the Florida Bar sent in their information, as far as I’m concerned, everybody got the same access to the governor as far as I know. Um, you know, the family law section pre presented legal memorandum. The, the family law section presented, you know, an evaluation of the bill for his consideration. I hope and believe that that was what persuaded him, because it is very clear as a practitioner, when you look at this bill, the retroactivity is unconstitutional. It is crystal clear. I don’t care who says otherwise, it was crystal clear when you did an independent evaluation of what, 61 14, the fifth part of this bill did. Okay. Now, if that hadn’t been in there,

Matthew Brickman (46:54):
Maybe

Andrea Reid Esq. (46:54):
It wouldn’t have had a retroactivity problem, but if that hadn’t been in there, there wouldn’t have been supporters for this bill.

Matthew Brickman (47:00):
Right. All right. So, so Andrea, you just mentioned retroactivity. Yeah. So, um, but you said that’s in section five and we haven’t done section four, you

Andrea Reid Esq. (47:11):
No, no. It, it comes up in section four and five. So we could, we could,

Matthew Brickman (47:16):
So we did. All right. So, so we broke down section one, two, and three. So that was awesome. So let’s move on to section four of six. Cause you said we’ve got six different pieces and of course every, everyone and

Andrea Reid Esq. (47:29):
One’s just an enactment. So we’re, we’re good. Yeah. So 61 14 is just the enforcement of modifications the, the modifications. Okay. So now we’re in 61 14 and we’re, and we’re gonna get to the part, right?

Matthew Brickman (47:41):
Yeah. In retroactivity is where everyone’s all up in arms.

Andrea Reid Esq. (47:45):
Right?

Matthew Brickman (47:46):
So explain to me about the, like the un optionality of retro activity.

Andrea Reid Esq. (47:54):
All right, well, let me just, let’s do this. Yes. Let me tell you this. At this point in time, at this day and age without alimony reform, if a party wants to, to modify their alimony award, they file a petition for modification. Yes. With the petition comes a, a requirement for an answer. With an answer comes the possibility of a counter petition. Yeah. With the petition, it’s a, an exact explanation of what, why you’re changing that alimony. Correct. Just throw that to the wind. Okay. And now, instead of filing a petition for modification, now if I wanna, if I wanna modify, I’m going to file a notice of intent of retirement and intent to terminate alimony with the court, I’m gonna file a notice of intent of retirement, an intent to terminate alimony. Okay. So I’m not no petition for modification.

Matthew Brickman (48:50):
Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. For those that don’t understand, and that can be a lot of people. What, let, let’s go back all the way to the basics. Okay? Because, because you had said, okay, if, you know, if you’re gonna modify alimony, you gotta file a petition. Maybe there’s a counter petitioner answer or what. That’s with any modification. I mean, I even see that with a modification of time sharing, like if they’re gonna change a parenting plan. Right? Right. But what is for, just, just from the legal basis, so everybody is crystal clear, what is the difference between a petition and a notice? Because those have big differences. Like those are completely different, that have different rules and timelines and everything. Right?

Andrea Reid Esq. (49:40):
Yeah. Well, here’s the deal. There’s only one other place in 61 where we see a notice. And that’s the notice of intent to relocate. Correct. And that isn’t, and even that has very specific parameters. When do you file your objection? And what does your petition, what does your notice of, uh, request to relocate? Say, Okay, so we have no idea exactly what is required and what is the legal parameter of a notice of intent to relocate

Matthew Brickman (50:09):
Petition? We dunno. Petition, answer, maybe counter petition. We, we know exactly right?

Andrea Reid Esq. (50:15):
Because petition are

Matthew Brickman (50:16):
Used days. You’ve got uhhuh,

Andrea Reid Esq. (50:18):
Uhhuh, there’s clear direct. Okay. Oh, yeah. But not here. Now you’re gonna get this notice of intent to retire, intent to terminate, and then it gets, this is great, it’s gonna get served on the alimony recipient. Okay. And it’s gonna get served on their last attorney, whether that was 10 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, six months ago

Matthew Brickman (50:46):
Of record. And they’re going to then be getting this, which wouldn’t that cost, then that person money for the attorney to then get it, and then they’d have to reach out, and then they’re gonna get a bill. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, right? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>.

Andrea Reid Esq. (51:00):
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, maybe, and it’s, you know, it’s only if that attorney’s been practicing in the same county, but that’s gonna require a level of research and level of evaluation.

Matthew Brickman (51:11):
What happens if they’ve either retired, so they’re no longer practicing, I guess, unicorn, right? Maybe they’re dead. Like, well then what? I know we have no clear direction of it. And then what, Right,

Andrea Reid Esq. (51:24):
Right. So then what it says, All right, so now you’ve served this notice of intent. Now, first of all, we have no idea what should be included in that notice of intent. Just, Hey, hey, here’s, I’m done.

Matthew Brickman (51:36):
You could do

Andrea Reid Esq. (51:37):
A sticky, I’m done.

Matthew Brickman (51:38):
You could do a sticky note.

Andrea Reid Esq. (51:40):
Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So then the person who’s asking to modify has 20 days after they serve that, um, to, so then it says the obligates shall have 20 days after the date of service of the notice to, to request the court to enter findings that as of the data filing the notice. Um, so here’s the thing. Now they have to request the court to make findings. I don’t know what that means.

Matthew Brickman (52:07):
Yeah. I don’t even know what that means.

Andrea Reid Esq. (52:10):
Right. So what does that look? I, I, it’s you’re asking the court to make findings, so have court to findings. Now, it also doesn’t say that court’s gonna enter findings after evaluation of circumstances. Right? So the court’s entering findings, are they having a hearing? I don’t know. Are they reading the petition?

Matthew Brickman (52:40):
There is no

Andrea Reid Esq. (52:41):
Petition. What is happening?

Matthew Brickman (52:42):
There is no petition. It’s a notice, You

Andrea Reid Esq. (52:44):
Know? Right, right, right, right, right. So

Matthew Brickman (52:46):
Both parties just submitting a proposed order, Like, I mean, no idea. Okay. Right.

Andrea Reid Esq. (52:54):
Problem. Right. So, so start

Matthew Brickman (52:56):
Without direction, without clear direction. Nobody knows interpretation and enforceability, like there’s nothing there.

Andrea Reid Esq. (53:05):
Right? And so what that creates is, is a level of confusion, uncertainty, lack of clarity that everybody’s gonna have to figure out, okay, what is this notice of intent? Does it have the effect of a petition? Um, does it have to be personally served? Um, you know, what is the proof of service? You know, it says personally serve, um, what is the obligation? So, so even with like the relocation statute, for example, if you serve the notice in the relocation case, there’s bold letters that have to be placed in the notice that say you are here by notified that you have to object within so many days, blah, blah, blah. Okay, That’s in there. None of this, none of this. And we’re talking about modifying a person’s livelihood. Yeah. Okay. So then you’ve got, um, then the court has to enter findings. And these findings are, I mean, yeah, the reduction in the reduction in the termination of alimony would result in this is the per the recipient has to prove, has to get this finding. The obliges income would be less than 130% of the federal poverty guidelines for one person household as established as published by the United States Department of Health, based on thees income and investible assets, including any retirement assets from which the obligee can it assess income without incurring early withdrawal penalties. Let’s just look at it real quick.

Matthew Brickman (54:38):
But Andrea, so

Andrea Reid Esq. (54:40):
Do you

Matthew Brickman (54:40):
Have, But isn’t there a problem with that? Because they’ve redefined income?

Andrea Reid Esq. (54:47):
Yup. Well, oh, no, no, no, no, no. Redefined income. It it’s gonna come up later, later, later.

Matthew Brickman (54:53):
Well, because, because remember, section one you had, you, you had told us they had redefined income, but now they’re talking income again, and then they’re talking, Oh,

Andrea Reid Esq. (55:03):
Oh, oh, oh, Matt, No, Matt, Matt, Matt. That new thing about income, that only applies to the person paying the, so, so the person who’s paying the alii, that person, you can only look at the active income, the person who’s receiving alimony. Oh no. All the rest of the income is fair gain.

Matthew Brickman (55:24):
Active and passive

Andrea Reid Esq. (55:26):
Active and passive

 

Matthew Brickman:
Occasionally Sydney and I will be releasing Q & A bonus episodes where we will answer questions and give you a personal shout out.

Sydney Mitchell:
If you have a comment or question regarding anything that we discuss, email us at info@ichatmediation.com that’s info@ichatmediation.com and stay tuned to hear your shout out and have your question answered here on the show.