PeRmanenTalimonyisdead, BuTnominalalimonyliVeson
Marital & Family Law Section Chair: MarkF. Baseman – Felix & Baseman, LLC
The July 1, 2023 amendments to Chapter 61, Florida Statutes, have remained at the center of marital and family law discussions for nearly three years after their enactment. February 18, 2026 was no different, with the release of Atkinson v. Atkinson, 1 where the 4th DCA clarified that nominal alimony awards remain available in dissolution of marriage actions despite the 2023 elimination of permanent alimony.
Before the statutory changes, Florida courts allowed nominal alimony awards( i. e., one dollar per month)“ where a spouse would be entitled to alimony but for the paying spouse’ s temporary inability to pay, which is reasonably foreseeable to change in the future.” 2 Thus, nominal alimony served as a placeholder for a more substantive award, giving the court continued jurisdiction to reconsider an alimony award once the payor spouse regained the ability to pay.
Nominal alimony is not explicitly addressed in the Florida Statutes, and courts generally entered nominal awards only where permanent alimony was appropriate. As a result, when the 2023 statutory amendments eliminated permanent alimony, it became unclear whether nominal alimony awards would remain an option, and if so, under what circumstances? Atkinson answered this question— not only
confirming nominal awards survived the statutory amendments, but also that a court’ s denial of this award may be reversible error.
In Atkinson, the wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage that did not award her nominal alimony or retain jurisdiction to revisit alimony in the future. The Atkinsons were married for 18 years. Former wife worked part-time, while the husband historically made upwards of $ 100,000 annually. Although the Parties stipulated to the wife’ s need for alimony, the husband’ s expenses nearly exhausted his income. However, 50 % of the husband’ s income went toward mortgage payments on the marital home, which he intended to sell in the near future. The husband was also paying monthly storage expenses pending the sale of the home.
The Atkinson court concluded that the trial court erred by denying the wife nominal alimony because the“ husband’ s financial circumstances would improve when the marital home was sold, and he would have a less expensive mortgage” and because he“ would no longer need a storage unit after the home’ s sale.” 3 Thus, Atkinson held the trial court should have awarded nominal alimony because the husband’ s inability to pay was
atkinson answered thisquestion— notonlyconfirming nominalawards survivedthestatutory amendments, butalso thatacourt’ sdenial ofthisawardmaybe reversibleerror.
temporary and likely to change in the foreseeable future while the wife’ s need was undisputed.
Atkinson included a footnote addressing the confusion surrounding the 2023 statutory amendments, stating:“ We recognize that the Florida legislature effectively eliminated permanent alimony in 2023. However, the ability of circuit courts to award nominal alimony was not affected. § 61.08( 1)( a), Fla. Stat.( 2023).” 4
Of course, Atkinson raises an obvious question: because courts can no longer award alimony indefinitely, what is the minimum duration necessary to justify a nominal award? Like the Atkinson panel, this article will also leave that question to be answered by someone else in the future. n
1
Atkinson v. Atkinson, 429 So. 3d 526( Fla. 4th DCA 2026).
2
Id. at 528.
3
Id. at 529.
4
Id. at 529 n. 1.
Author: Lauren Corbridge – Harris, Hunt & Derr, P. A.
J U LY- A U G 2 0 2 6 | H C B A L A W Y E R
4 7