Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

Parents filing to establish or modify child support has increased the burden on Florida's marital and family law court system. Child support hearing offices have been working overtime. Unfortunately, the court system can not deal with the increased demand without more employees. However, this seems unlikely given budget cuts in the state of Florida.

A parent in Broward that is trying to establish child support may have to wait up to six months for a hearing. In addition, parents requesting a modification of child support because of wage cuts or unemployment may have to wait up to three months for a hearing. In Florida, child support modification cases, specifically downward modifications, have increased by 50% since 2006. Broward Circuit Court Judge Susan Greenhawt who hears marital and family law cases including, but not limited to, divorce and paternity, believes that these type of cases really need to be heard since generally there is a contempt motion pending at the same time.

In some cases, individuals are unable to afford to hire a child support lawyer in Fort Lauderdale and proceed on their own. They use online forms, question the clerks and often forget important documents at their hearing. At the hearing, they often ask the court to appoint a lawyer since they can not afford one. Unfortunately, they have to do the best they can and often have their cases dismissed until they can present their case properly.

If you file for divorce in Broward, your attorney may suggest that you retain a forensic accountant to value the marital business. However, in these uncertain economic times the values of marital assets are volatile and may fluctuate after trial and before the marital and family court in Florida enters the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In the case of Mistretta v. Mistretta, the Miami Herald is reporting that First District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in revisiting the equitable distribution due to the economic recession

In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered on August 25, 2008, the trial court distributed the marital business to the Husband, assigned a date of valuation of October 31, 2007 and ordered the Husband to make a one time cash equalization payment of $845,000 to the Wife. The Husband requested a new trial and valuation of the business relying upon the economic recession that began in December, 2007 as "newly discovered evidence." The trial court granted the Husband's motion.

Rehearing or a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence is permitted when it appears that the evidence will possibly change the result if a new trial is granted, the evidence has been discovered since trial, the evidence could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence, the evidence is material to the issue and the evidence is not just cumulative or impeaching. The alleged "newly discovered evidence" cannot simply show some change in circumstance since the trial.

Here, the "newly discovered evidence", evidence of an economic recession that began in December, 2007 and operating results thereafter, proves a change in circumstances after the date of valuation and relates to events that took place after trial. In reversing the decision of the Florida divorce court, the First District Court of Appeal held that a cloudy crystal ball is no basis for a new trial. The Court reasoned that when the way that the future unfolds is different than business appraisers assume cannot be a basis for a new trial on the value of a business if trials on such issues are ever to yield final adjudications.

When a third grade teacher recently got divorced, she had trouble explaining the concept to her two children, ages 4 and 7. While the children had some knowledge about a divorce, the wife decided to read books that dealt with child custody matters such as time-sharing, shared parental responsibility and parenting plans in order to help her children understand what their parents were going through. Now, divorce attorneys in Miami-Dade and Broward may recommend that you purchase a book by Kristi Schwartz titled Divorced Together For the Sake of Children. The book was released on January 22, 2010 and may help Florida children understand about a divorce.

Sandy T. Fox, Esquire, a divorce lawyer in Broward and Miami-Dade, represented the Former Wife in an enforcement proceeding in the Florida marital and family law court located north of Fort Lauderdale. The equitable distribution provision of the marital settlement agreement provided that the Former Wife was to receive $141,263.72 from the Former Husband. The Former Husband retained his real property in New York. While no date of payment to the Former Wife was specified in the marital settlement agreement, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage ordered the parties to comply with the marital settlement agreement.

The Former Wife filed a motion to enforce the equitable distribution provision of the final judgment since the Former Husband had only made 5 incremental payments. At the hearing, she testified that she was to receive $141,263.72 upon entry of the final judgment. On the otherhand, the Former Husband testified that the Former Wife was to be paid upon the sale of his New York property.

On appeal in the case of Crespo v. Crespo, the Former Wife argued that the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence as to the intent of the parties. In affirming the decision of the divorce court located north of Ft. Lauderdale, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the marital settlement agreement contained a latent ambiguity since it failed to specify the time in which the Former Wife was to receive payment from the Former Husband. The court explained that a latent ambiguity arises when the language in a contract is clear and intelligible and suggests a single meaning, but some extrinsic fact or extraneous evidence creates a necessity for interpretation or a choice among two or more possible meanings.

In affirming the decision of the Florida marital and family law court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when a marital settlement agreement is ambiguous or unclear as to a particular right or duty, the court may receive extrinsic parol evidence for the purpose of determining the intent of the parties at the time of the contract. The court reasoned that when a contract fails to specify the rights or duties of the parties, extrinsic evidence becomes necessary and the trial court can consider parol evidence.

Many times Broward divorce attorneys receive telephone calls from a parent who claims that the other parent has abducted their child. However, many individuals are unaware of the Hague Convention, a multinational treaty that provides an expeditious method to return a child taken from one member nation to another.

The Hague Convention insures the prompt return of children who have been abducted from their country of habitual residence or wrongfully retained in a contracting state not their country of habitual residence. While the Hague Convention only applies to children under the age of 16, it preserves the status quo time-sharing and child custody arrangement that was in place before an alleged wrongful removal or retention deterring a parent from forum shopping to a more sympathetic court.

The United States of America would like Japan to sign a global convention on international parental child abduction. This would assist foreign nationals who are denied contact, access and time-sharing with children by their Japanese former spouse. Japan is one of seven nations that have not signed the Hague Convention.