- 6 -
Ct. App. 1985). According to the Florida Supreme Court, an award
of lump-sum alimony survives the death of both the obligor and
the obligee. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201
(Fla. 1980); see also Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 61.075(2) (West 2006);
Filipov v. Filipov, 717 So. 2d 1082, 1084 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).
Thus, it seems clear that an award of lump-sum alimony in this
case would not meet the requirement of section 71(b)(1)(D) for
deduction eligibility.
Petitioner argues that the label of “lump-sum alimony” in
his divorce decree should not be conclusive. Accordingly, he
directs us to caselaw discussing the reasons behind a typical
award of lump-sum alimony and points to the differences between
his situation and the cases cited by respondent. Although
applying the principle of substance over form is often
appropriate, this Court is not in a position to review the trial
court’s specific award of “lump-sum alimony”, nor is it our place
to second-guess the award’s function on the record we have before
us.
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner’s deduction of the
$7,200 paid to his ex-wife in 2003 was improper as it did not
meet the definition of “alimony” under section 71(b)(1)(D).
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007