Demont v. Demont, 67 So. 3d 1096

Married in 1989, separated in 2008, with three children; dissolution petition filed October 2007; amended final judgment in July 2009 and supplemental judgment subsequently issued.
Husband’s employment history includes a high-salary tenure at Suddath until November 2008, then a lower-paying position at Smith, Hulsey; he signed a non-compete/waiver and received multiple payouts.
Wife stayed largely out of paid employment during the marriage to support the husband’s career and later sought alimony and employment; she emphasizes need for durable support due to lifestyle and debts.
Temporary needs order during pendency obligated husband to cover mortgage, utilities, insurance, various living expenses, and cash support; the order was intended as interim.
Trial court’s equitable distribution valued assets including a primary residence (~$1.4M with a mortgage), Suddath SARs ($707,076), a $165,000 Suddath payout, a 401(k) ($88,062), and other smaller accounts; real estate and debts marked for eventual division.
Alimony rulings: bridge-the-gap alimony of $4,000/month for 24 months plus nominal permanent alimony of $50/month, with potential modification based on changes in circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a bridge-the-gap alimony award was appropriate	Demont argues trial court misapplied law and used bridge-the-gap inappropriately given long marriage and needs.	Demont contends court properly exercised discretion to bridge gap due to uncertain finances.	Bridge-the-gap award affirmed; court acted within discretion.
Whether nominal permanent alimony is adequate after a long marriage	Demont asserts permanent alimony should be more substantial given long marriage and needs.	Demont argues court’s nominal amount recognizes ongoing need but reflects financial realities and potential future adjustments.	Nominal permanent alimony affirmed; court retained jurisdiction to adjust if circumstances change.
Whether the husband dissipated marital funds during the proceedings	Demont contends substantial expenditures depleted marital assets.	Demont asserts expenditures were ordinary family/household costs or benefitted children, not dissipation.	No abuse of discretion; court properly found no dissipation.
Whether the March 2010 final non-compete payment is a marital asset	Demont contends the $165,000 non-compete payment is a marital asset subject to distribution.	Demont argues the payment is future-oriented compensation for post-employment conduct and not a marital asset.	Reversed; final non-compete payment is not a marital asset; remand for distribution adjustment.

Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Florida 1980) (trial courts have broad discretion in alimony awards)
Engesser v. Engesser, 42 So.3d 249 (Florida 5th DCA 2010) (affirming considerable discretion in alimony determinations)
Shea v. Shea, 572 So.2d 558 (Florida 1st DCA 1990) (bridge-the-gap alimony recognized in appropriate circumstances)
Vanbrussel v. Vanbrussel, 710 So.2d 170 (Florida 1st DCA 1998) (support for bridge-the-gap concept)
Iribar v. Iribar, 510 So.2d 1023 (Florida 3d DCA 1987) (bridge-the-gap considerations)
Bradshaw v. Pantry Pride Ent., Inc., 566 So.2d 1306 (Florida 3d DCA 1990) (non-compete/contextual employment payments contrasted with retirement)
Jaffy v. Jaffy, 965 So.2d 825 (Florida 4th DCA 2007) (marital lifestyle and debt context in alimony analysis)
Nourse v. Nourse, 948 So.2d 903 (Florida 2d DCA 2007) (jurisdiction to revisit alimony upon changed circumstances)
Gergen v. Gergen, 48 So.3d 148 (Florida 1st DCA 2010) (retains court’s jurisdiction to revisit financial arrangements)
Schmidt v. Schmidt, 997 So.2d 451 (Florida 2d DCA 2008) (reconsideration of permanent alimony upon financial change)
O’Leesky v. Liggett, 544 So.2d 268 (Florida 2d DCA 1989) (initial/marital asset characterization framework)