Abating Modifying Support Because of Job Loss
Are you worried about not being able to make support payments due to the loss of employment? Don’t worry, you are not alone. Life happens, and we are here to help.
Alimony and Child Support payments are calculated based off “the need” of the receiving a party and “ability to pay” of the paying party. Thus, when the court looks to make changes to a support payment, a change in the ability to pay can be grounds for a reduction or suspension in payments.
When it comes to support payments, whether it is alimony or child support, the court has two methods in which it has the ability to make changes to the amount owed by the paying spouse. The first method is by modifying support payments, and the second method is by abating or suspending support payments.
Modifying v. Abating Support Payments—What’s the Difference?
For the court to order that a modification of child support or alimony be made they must find that there has been a “substantial, permanent and involuntary change in circumstances.” The presence of the current pandemic has caused drastic changes in the economy, causing many people to lose their jobs. The courts have often found that the loss of employment, when not the fault of the paying party, constitutes an involuntary, and substantial change in circumstances.
However, in order to modify alimony or child support, the change must be permanent. The court has held that unemployment that lasts less than a year is not “permanent.” Thus, where unemployment is only expected to be temporary (less than a year), the courts will instead ‘abate’ child support and alimony payments. In doing so, the courts may reduce, or completely suspend such payment obligations, until the paying parent is able to obtain new employment. In addition, where support payments are abated or suspended, the paying parent or spouse will not be subject to the accrual of arrearages.
As with everything, each case is unique. Therefore, we recommend reaching out to an attorney in order to determine how your recent unemployment may affect your current obligation.
Citations:
Manning v. Manning, 600 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Dept. of Revenue v. Heirholzer, 708 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
Davis v. Davis, 528 So.2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
Bennett v. Department of Revenue, 664 So.2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995
