Interview with Andrea Reid Esq on Florida's Income and Poverty Guidelines in 2022

Topics such as Florida Alimony Reform, Child Support and Spousal Support in Florida are pressing matters. Matthew Brickman and Andrea Reid Esq. discuss how agreements for these matters are negotiated according to Florida's Income and Poverty Guidelines.

If you have a matter, disagreement, or dispute you need professional help with then visit iMediate.com - Email mbrickman@ichatmediation or Call (877) 822-1479

Matthew Brickman is a Florida Supreme Court certified family and appellate mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. But what makes him qualified to speak on the subject of conflict resolution is his own personal experience with divorce.

Download Matthew's book on iTunes for FREE:
You're Not the Only One - The Agony of Divorce: The Joy of Peaceful Resolution

Matthew Brickman
President iMediate Inc.
Mediator 20836CFA
iMediateInc.com

SCHEDULE YOUR MEDIATION: https://ichatmediation.com/calendar/
OFFICIAL BLOG: https://ichatmediation.com/podcast
OFFICIAL YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/ichatmediation
OFFICIAL LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ichat-mediation/

ABOUT MATTHEW BRICKMAN:
Matthew Brickman is a Supreme Court of Florida certified county civil family mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. He is also an appellate certified mediator who mediates a variety of small claims, civil, and family cases. Mr. Brickman recently graduated both the Harvard Business School Negotiation Mastery Program and the Negotiation Master Class at Harvard Law School.

Transcript

Sydney Mitchell: 0:00

Hi. My name is Sydney Mitchell.

Matthew Brickman: 0:01

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

Andrea Reid Esq.: 0:12

Okay. So it's not good for the goose and good for the gander?

Matthew Brickman: 0:16

Well, no, but that's what I'm, that's, that's what I'm pointing out is, wait a second, we've got a contradictory when we're talking income.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 0:23

Mm-hmm.<affirmative>. Mm-hmm.<affirmative>. So, Alright. But look at this as, this is one of the parts that was really so frustrating about this. So 130% of the federal poverty guidelines is somewhere around like$17,000 a

Matthew Brickman: 0:40

Year minimum wage.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 0:41

Yeah. It's, it's somewhere around that.

Matthew Brickman: 0:44

Actually, I think it's a little bit less than minimum wage in Florida right now. Cause right now it's$10 an hour about to go to$11 an hour<inaudible>, which is 22. So it's right around minimum wage.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 0:55

Right. So for example, if, if, if this person is gonna have a dollar above 130% of the poverty guidelines, then the, then the alimony terminates.

Matthew Brickman: 1:08

So it's inappropriate.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 1:10

Okay. Oh, yeah. I mean, forget what they need. Right? So you, so you have all of that, um,

Matthew Brickman: 1:15

Oh, wait, That's right. That's, that's right. Forget about need in ability to pay now we're just looking at 130% above poverty guidelines. So now we're throwing out other parts of Oh my gosh. Yeah. Mm-hmm.<affirmative> Okay. Problems.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 1:34

And look,

Matthew Brickman: 1:35

I'm just thinking, I'm thinking of, Okay, so, so as, as you're explaining this, and I'm, I'm even gaining more and more knowledge about this, I'm just thinking right now, like, as it sits right now with no change, Oh my gosh, this is so much easier to negotiate right now as we sit here trying to figure out how to negotiate all of this, when there's contradictory and, and it's not as clear like as a mediator. It just, it makes it, I'm ju I'm just sitting here going, How would I even negotiate these moving parts that are contradictory? Forget about, forget about you as a practitioner trying to guide your client legally without, but as a mediator trying to help you, help your client, trying to empower the clients. You know, I mean, my job is to give information, but if the information I'm giving doesn't even have a clear direction, how can I help them negotiate?

Andrea Reid Esq.: 2:34

Right. And remember, the only way you would ever get clarity in this law is through the appellate process. The appellate courts filter it down, and that could take years. And so what I wanna be clear to say is right here, this is your retroactivity. Okay, Matt, this is where the retroactive happens because what what has happened here is we have completely changed the process for modification. Okay? When John and Mary got divorced, Mary would've had to file, or John would've had to file a petition for modification. They are retiring, they have no more income. Mary's in a supportive relationship, they would've had a file, a petition. And in that petition they would've had to allege certain things. And when they made that deal, and let's say John or Mary decided that they were gonna accept that deal, they accepted it based on the fact that there was gonna have to be a proof of, of a substantial material and unanticipated change in circumstance, and that all the income was in play,

Matthew Brickman: 3:41

Actives

Andrea Reid Esq.: 3:42

Active and passive. And that's what John and Mary did contractually 10 years ago, let's say. Now what you're saying is, Hey guys, I know you entered into this contract based on that statute being that way, but now we're gonna turn the statute on its head, We're going to completely change. And by the way, at the same time, we're gonna shift the burden. Okay. The person who wanted the modification used to have to prove Yeah. Why they were eligible for a modification. Now the person who's defending against the modification has received the burden.

Matthew Brickman: 4:19

Oh,

Andrea Reid Esq.: 4:20

Now it's their burden. Okay. So what's important about that is that was not contemplated when these people entered into this agreement. Yeah. When these folks entered into this agreement, I could have said to my client, Hey, John or Mary, you gotta understand that if you're gonna modify this going down the road, here's how it's going to be modifiable. This is what's going to happen. And now that's actually not even the case. It's the opposite. Okay. So, so whereas Mary could have contemplated what it would cost for her burden, that's one thing. Now the burden has shifted. Wow. Okay. So this is where the meat and potatoes live with the retroactivity being unconstitutional. And, you know, it, it's, it's like I kind of said to you before, it wasn't obvious. This bill didn't make it obvious because it didn't say what people thought was happening was this, this, uh, elimination of permanent alimony. This 35% of, uh, this 50% of the duration, the 35% of the difference between the incomes, it would've been, you know, that does not apply retroactively. That was only gonna apply to new cases going forward. Okay.

Matthew Brickman: 5:32

Well, and That's where a lot of people were looking at. Um, and I, and you know, you and I had talked about it, like line 8 88 of the bill, it says this cor uh, the court shall apply this act to any action pending on or after July 1st, 2022. Therefore, it's like, Oh, well this is just new stuff. It's not going to undo the old stuff. But there's a lot of other stuff in here that you're pointing out that could potentially undo and there's no clear direction burden shift. And they don't have the same analysis of active and passive income. And the rules that were in play have now changed. And

Andrea Reid Esq.: 6:15

Right, Right. And that's, And see, and that's the problem is that you, you didn't, it just didn't, it just didn't leave the playing field equal. It, it didn't leave, it didn't leave the parties where they were. So, so for example, one of the things that was touted throughout the legislative session was this codifies him, this codifies the PIM v PIM case, you know, Florida Supreme Court case that basically said at 65, that's a pretty reasonable age to retire. And so, you know, PIM was really clear that like you have to prove a substantial change in circumstance and that actual retirement will reduce your income and then your ability to continue to pay the alimo. And that your, for example,

Matthew Brickman: 7:00

Your, So for example, let's say for example, that husband's making$10,000 a month and he's, and he's gonna retire and he's gonna get his pension and his retirement, but now he's only gonna be making, let's say 5,000. He'll make half,$5,000 a month. Well then mm-hmm.<affirmative>, Okay. Since it's not a voluntary reduction of income in order to avoid a support obligation, which is 6,113. Right. You can't be unemployed or underemployed to avoid a support obligation, but he was retiring. Now since he's got half the income now, they would have to consider, okay, he only has five instead of 10. Correct.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 7:42

Exactly. And then he would be like, Hey, and then the court could look at the idea that this is the appropriate time for you to retire. Right. You know, one of the catches in this bill comes a couple, a couple sentences later, and, um, it's probably one of the things that upset me the most about this bill was late in the game, almost on the, just

Matthew Brickman: 8:00

About the firefighters or police that that end up getting forced retirement before 65.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 8:07

Yep.

Matthew Brickman: 8:07

Is that the,

Andrea Reid Esq.: 8:08

But here you go.

Matthew Brickman: 8:08

Explain that because I read that, but for our listeners, explain that piece how that, how that would work.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 8:16

Okay. So if you go a little further into this section, it gets to a place where they talk about retirement at age 65 being an automatic reduction or termination in alimony. Okay. So once, so basically what it says is that is if the court does not make any findings, uh, the alimony award shall decrease by 25% on the date the obligor reaches 65 years of age. Okay? We have firefighters, we have a case on point. The, um, Moe's case, 52 years old police officer. Correct. Retirement time served his time. Firefighters at a particular age retire because they've done their time. They have a rigorous job, they should have to wait under this statute until they turned 65.

Matthew Brickman: 9:09

Yeah.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 9:09

And that's, that's not fair. That was unintended. That was another unintended consequence. I don't think that that was the intention, but I do think that that was the result. Yeah. And, and, and that's, that's one of the problems with the way this thing was drafted. So if an obligor, so long as he or she is older than 65 years of age seeks to retire, the court may terminate an alimony award if it determines that the obligor's retirement is reasonable. What about the oblig gore, who's not 65 yet? Yeah. So for, he looked in

Matthew Brickman: 9:41

The dark, for example, Johnny who may have graduated high school, went into, you know, went, went to firefighter Academy, has served his time, and you know, he's in his forties and he's retiring. He'd have to wait 25 years until he is allowed to modify under this provision if this had become law, correct,

Andrea Reid Esq.: 10:05

Mm-hmm.<affirmative>, Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Matthew Brickman: 10:07

<affirmative>, and

Andrea Reid Esq.: 10:07

Then again, unintended consequence of bad language.

Matthew Brickman: 10:10

Yeah, yeah,

Andrea Reid Esq.: 10:12

Yeah. And so, and so that's really, um, you know, you could go on and on because at the end of the day, this, the, there was a lot of effort on the reformer's part to address some of the concerns about the bill, about leaving, you know, um, mentally, or I'm sorry, physically disabled or disabled spouses behind make, make sure there's a caveat for them. Some of those things did get put in here, but at the end of the day, the retroactivity, the way that it turned, the modification process on its head is just so patently unfair and then subsequently unconstitutional. You just can't do that. And, and so, so it's, there's, you know, there's, there's plenty of case law out there that gets you to this point. And the thing is, it, it's not in family law because it's, it, you know, it's happened in other statutes, you know. But, um, I can tell you that it was well researched. I can tell you that, you know, there was talk of, and I don't know if you've ever seen it, but there was talk of the alimony reform team having a brief on the fact that the st the, the amended statute was constitutional. I never saw anything like that. I, I never, they never shared with us, uh, what made the, you know, what satisfied the constitutionality. Now it was different in other states when these modifications took place because their statutes were entirely different. Um, they have different equitable distribution. They had different, um, alimony revision laws in place to begin with. And that's why you just, it, it's not singing the same song to the same tune.

Matthew Brickman: 11:56

But, you know, Andrea, Vince, that is one of the things, you know, you know, I've been doing virtual mediation for years, I mean years and years and years and years long before Covid. And so I was doing mediations in other states. I've been in another countries. And one of the things that I'm constantly saying on the podcast over and over and over and over and over again is, you know, know the laws of the state that you're in. Because one of the beauties of family law is it is state run. It's not federal. Federally run. The federal government can't run anything properly. Um, and I I'm glad that they're not running family. Um, I like that, that each state gets to govern family law. I like that. But it's so important to know. And so that's one of the problems. I mean, and I'm, I'm sure you know, as a practitioner, sometimes it's frustrating to you. I know at times it can be frustrating to me where, you know, we're in mediation or maybe you're helping a client, and they're like, Well, you know, I talked to my mom and she said, Well, where's your And the fir my my, my first question is, where's your mom? Where's your friend live? Like, I had a mediation the other day and they were like, Wow, you know, you know, she's been talking to her mom and her sisters, and the first thing I said is, Where do they live? Oh, well, they live in New York. Different rules, different laws. That's not how it's done in the state of Florida. Yeah. And so I guess what you're saying here is even when trying to mirror family law or, or alimony reform in other states, it's not just, Hey, we're just gonna do the same thing they did, because they may have other things. It's just like any negotiated agreement. You negotiate other pieces to get these things. And so maybe when they've created it, say, in Pennsylvania, well, maybe they had a different, a different law regarding equitable distribution, or they had a different retirement, or they had different rules on modification, or they had different rules on time sharing. Like, I mean, I've done, I've done mediations in other states where child support goes until the child graduates college 21. No, I've had college even, and I'm like, mm-hmm.<affirmative> like, okay, well, you know, in some states where college is part of dealing with child support related expenses, but it's not here. And so you can't just say, And again, I love that it's not rubber stamped, it's not just family law. There you go. Which is like, great, we don't have a federal law. And, uh, I've always said one of the beauties of being a human being opposed to anything else that's been created on this planet is free will. If you don't like the laws of your state, you're free to move<laugh>. We reved. Or you can vote, and you know what, you know. But again, that was one of the biggest problems was people were very excited that finally we had a bipartisan democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, you know, house and Senate that passed this thing. But then the governor vetoed it and they said, Oh, is unconstitutional. And everyone was like, Well, wouldn't the legislature know that? Why? You know, wouldn't they avoid that? But is your plan

Andrea Reid Esq.: 14:58

Well, here, but wait a minute, it, you said no, you say bipartisan. It wa it, didn't it, it still, it still flew down party lines. It didn't, it wasn't unanimous.

Matthew Brickman: 15:10

No, no, no, no. It wasn't unanimous. Yeah. But, but it wasn't like, it wasn't like we had a Republican house and Senate and a Republican governor. Right. Like you had, and I mean, everybody has been talking about even one of the emails and you know, I, I read said, you know, we have a house and Senate super majority, right? And they said it was a bipartisan bill from elected officials. And then DeSantis came in and vetoed, you know, he was addicted. So

Andrea Reid Esq.: 15:36

It wasn't, it wasn't a bipartisan bill. That's, that's not true. But that, that's not true. It was not a bipartisan bill. It was carried, It was carried by, Hold on, gimme one second. It was originally carried. There's by Joe Gru's, uh, in the house. Is that the Senate? In the Senate as well as Rodriguez Hooper and Diaz, all Republicans? Same thing on the house side. Uh, Jenna, uh, Parsons Mollica. Yeah. No, no, no. There, there was nothing really bipartisan about this.

Matthew Brickman: 16:13

So again, again, just more misinformation to stir up and to try to give blame instead of actually looking at the constitutionality of the unconstitutionality of the bill. It's easier just to say, Oh, well it was a super majority. Well no, it wasn't. Or it was a bipartisan, you know, just a bunch of just, we're just gonna slap a label on it instead of actually digging in and understanding what's

Andrea Reid Esq.: 16:38

Going. Yeah. So it came out of the Senate. It came out of the Senate with 21 Yay, 16 Nas. It came outta the house with 74 yays, 42 Nas. And there were actually, um, some Republicans who did vote against the bill. Um, Yeah. And there were Republicans that voted against the bill. Yeah. Uh, so no, it was not, like, it wasn't, it wasn't a kumbaya bill. It, you know, there was a lot of discussion. There was a lot of, um, in committee passion discussion.

Matthew Brickman: 17:12

So, you know, it reminds me, like when I said earlier about, unless you're part of the negotiations, you don't know what actually was talked about, traded, negotiated, everything. Just like when we do mediation, it's private and confidential, you know, like, okay, fine, you can get a mediated settlement agreement. But, you know, people always say, Well, Matthew, and, and I get this a lot, Andrea, and I think I've even had it with, you know, mediated with you in the past, but you know, the client goes after the fact. Like they're sign it. They're like, Matthew, this is a good agreement, Right?

Andrea Reid Esq.: 17:47

<laugh>,

Matthew Brickman: 17:49

You know, this, this was fair, right? Like you would sign this, right, Andrea, I, and, and everybody that's ever asked me that 15 years, I've done over over 2,700 mediations. And I'm like, Okay, you never look at an agreement as good, bad, right, wrong, fair, unfair. Because those are all subjective, individual to individual. You know, you have your own belief systems, you have your own family, you have your own culture, you have your own, you know, whatever it is. And so, you know, and, and, and it's funny when they say, Well, you would sign it, right? To which I respond, no. And they're like, Why did you have me sign it? I'm like, Oh, no, no, no. I'm not having you sign anything. You're not gonna sign anything that you can't live with. I said, Look, there are bits and pieces of every single negotiated agreement that I like this, but I don't like that. But it's not my life. Right? Like, you know, I don't, I don't have that cultural belief cuz I'm not from Venezuela, so I don't understand. But look, if you can live with it, which is why you're saying these things need to have that discretion of the court, but we have to have a clear line to move through with direction. And without that, this is, this doesn't fix anything. This makes a, a, a difficult situation even worse.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 19:10

Yeah. And what's frustrating for me was I was watching good members of the house and great members of the Senate struggling with this bill and, and getting the misinformation and trying to, to show the unintended consequences of good intentions. Yeah. And, and, and that was frustrating for me because I, I know that those who supported the bill, their heart was in it. They thought that this really was a good thing to pass. And there were parts of this that were excellent, but there are some parts of it that just would cause so much more damage and, and, and in family law more than a lot of other areas. And believe me, I I admit that there are much more important areas in the lot and family, however, you're talking about people's livelihoods being spent on litigation, you're talking about. And, and you know, when we talk about the, um, the trauma that children go through when their parents are going through a divorce, when we talk about the way parents come home after meeting with their lawyer, after under learning this process, the fear that a spouse goes through when they think they're gonna be left destitute or the fear that a spouse goes through and they think that all of their hard work is, is not gonna something, what that does is it puts children through a very tumultuous time in their life, psychologically, emotionally, and all of those things. We owe it to families to make sure that the process that they engage in, in the court system is as clear as possible. Yeah. And one of the intentions of this bill was in fact to make it a lot more clearer with the calculation and with that, that understanding of the duration. And that was well intentioned. Yeah. But when other things get lumped into it, it created, you know, it's like you had to throw the baby out with the bath water. Yeah. And it's unfortunate because there is a way to create clarity and statute, but it has to be really, really well written.

Matthew Brickman: 21:06

All right. So, so I've got another question based on what we're talking about right there, but what's, what's, what's the next section now in your book? Cause I think we're almost at

Andrea Reid Esq.: 21:16

The, Yeah, so, so section five had to do with the bifurcation. So bifurcation meaning, um, it two years of elapsed from the, the data filing, you can bifurcate the case so you can divorce the couple, Right. And you can keep the divorce running. Big problem. Yeah. The big problem with bifurcation is that you could divorce me and my spouse and then I can go out there and purchase properties and I can do all sorts of things that I'm not going to be able, you know, if equitable distribution isn't done, if time sharing isn't done, you know, bifurcation is done right now under extraordinary circumstances.

Matthew Brickman: 21:54

Yeah. I've had that

Andrea Reid Esq.: 21:55

Was

Matthew Brickman: 21:56

Two, that's it. I've had two

Andrea Reid Esq.: 21:59

In 15 years,

Matthew Brickman: 22:01

Two cases that were bifurcated and they were unicorns. I mean Yeah. But, but again, it was so unique to that family and their situation. Right. And what was interesting was when I got them, they had already gone to court and the judge had bifurcated it. So I mean, but, and so very, very unique. Very unique. Yeah. Okay.

Andrea Reid Esq.: 22:27

So and then the last provision is just, and then section six is the enactment. Right. So the enactment part is also confusing. Yeah. Because section six is the court shall apply this act to any action pending on or after July 1st, 2022. That's enactment for the whole statute. But section four had a different enactment, um, which was that it applied to all cases. You know, you would file the case and it would apply and that's why people were saying Yeah. But it applies going forward. No, no, no. You're applying a new process going forward. Yeah. It's not gonna retroactively apply the way the other part does. But anyway, it got a little confusing there.

Matthew Brickman: 23:10

All right. So 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: 23:19

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.

Matthew Brickman: 23:35

For more information about my services or to schedule your mediation with me, either in person or using my iChatMediation Virtual Platform built by Cisco Communications. Visit me online at www.iMediateInc.com. Call me at 561-262-9121, Toll-Free at 877-822-1479 or email me at MBrickman@iChatMediation.com.