When you enter into divorce litigation, there are certain things you know at the outset. One of these is that the law presumes that your spouse and you should split all marital assets 50-50. This presumption is not ironclad, however, since fairness and the law dictate that a 50-50 split is not the proper outcome in all cases. In order to receive an uneven distribution in your case, the law requires your trial judge to make certain findings. In one recent case from the Tampa Bay area, the trial court’s failure to make the obligatory findings led the Second District Court of Appeal to throw out a distribution awarding the wife more than 50% of certain assets.
If you are seeking an injunction for protection from domestic violence, or if you are defending against such an injunction, it is important to understand that these injunctions can have very real and significant impacts and that these cases should be taken very seriously. Regardless of whether you are the alleged victim or the alleged perpetrator, it is important to ensure that you have what you need to persuade the court that your situation does (or does not) present a valid case for an injunction. In a recent case from Polk County, the Second District Court of Appeal threw out an injunction because the woman’s evidence amounted to one incident from a long time ago that only indicated a “relationship gone awry,” rather than an imminent threat of violence.
In any civil court case, including family law cases, paperwork is an important part of achieving a successful outcome. The difference between a successful resolution and an unsuccessful one can be your ability to provide the correct documentation to the court to meet all of the procedural rules and to establish that you are entitled to the relief you’re requesting. In a recent case from Broward County, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s decision finding a due process violation, which the court declared was a result of a lack of written proof that a father received proper notice that his former mother-in-law was requesting a change in custody of the man’s child.
As a divorced parent, one thing that can be both agonizing and incredibly frustrating is when your ex-spouse undertakes to engage in deception in order to dodge paying a proper amount of child support. What do you do if you believe that not only is your ex-spouse engaging in such activity but also his employer is conspiring with him to hide his true level of income? A recent opinion from the Fourth District Court of Appeal provides some answers.
A recent case originating in Tallahassee provides a useful lesson in how a parent must go about presenting a case for a timesharing modification based upon parental alienation. The First District Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge’s refusal to modify a timesharing agreement because the father’s case was insufficient to demonstrate the sort of extreme, substantial, and unanticipated action required by the law to re-open the issue of timesharing. The court explained that this type of request sets up a very high hurdle for the parent seeking modification, and although the father’s allegations were “troubling” and demonstrated a contentious relationship between the parents, they weren’t enough.
A South Florida doctor’s wife succeeded in obtaining a reversal recently of a trial court order that awarded her only durational rather than permanent alimony. Since the couple was married for 18 years, the wife should have received permanent alimony unless the trial judge made a finding that permanent alimony was inappropriate. The Fourth District Court of Appeal‘s decision in this couple’s case was also interesting in reaffirming that simply because the state legislature created durational alimony a few years ago did not mean that its creation wiped out the legal presumption in favor of permanent alimony in cases involving long-term marriages.
If you are familiar with daytime talk TV shows, or maybe just pop culture in general, perhaps you’ve witnessed the scene. The baritone-voiced talk show host, with all the appropriate dramatic pauses, tells the man sitting on stage the results of a DNA paternity test. “You are… not the father,” the host exclaims. The man dances. The woman cries. YouTube users compile the scenarios for “Best of” and “Top 5” videos. These issues also occur outside daytime TV, and they are very serious matters. Many real lives may be dramatically altered by the outcomes of these procedures. So, what happens if you think you may need to disestablish legal paternity of a child in Florida? A recent case decided by the First District Court of Appeal, in resolving the case of one man, highlights some options available under this state’s law.
A popular song from 2005 took a cynical look at certain aspects of couples and family relationships. In the song, the rapper opines, “She got one of your kids, got you for 18 years.” The lyric, of course, is a reference to child support and the commonly held notion that a parent owing support could potentially pay from the child’s birth until the child reaches the age of majority on her 18th birthday. In states like Florida, however, this notion is not precisely accurate. A recent case from North Florida illustrates this point. The First District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s decision to award child support to a father, even though he filed his request for support after the daughter had already turned 18 years old. Why did he win? He won because, although the child was 18, she had not yet graduated from high school.
An alleged stalking case from the Tampa Bay area serves as a reminder of the appropriate legal and procedural hurdles that must be cleared before an injunction against stalking can be issued. In this case, the Second District Court of Appeal overturned the entry of an injunction against a man because the trial court denied him his constitutional rights when it refused to let him put on part of his evidence defending against the assertions made by his ex-girlfriend.
In Florida, the laws regarding divorce have followed a “no-fault” system since 1971. Today, there are only two bases for obtaining a divorce: that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, or that one spouse has been declared mentally incompetent for at least three years. Before that, there were nine bases for obtaining a divorce under the old statute. One of those bases was adultery. Even though adultery is no longer a ground for divorce, a trial court in a divorce case may consider a spouse’s infidelity and, depending on the facts proven, may use that affair to alter the decisions it makes on alimony and equitable distribution. A recent Fifth District Court of Appeal case originating in Flagler County offers an example of how this works.