Martindale-Hubbell
The National Advocates
The National Advocates
National Board of Trial Advocacy
The Florida Bar
Best Lawyers

Published on: | by

In Florida, contempt proceedings in domestic violence matters must follow strict procedural safeguards, especially when the court seeks to impose criminal sanctions. The distinction between civil and criminal contempt is not merely academic; it determines the type of relief available, the rights afforded to the accused, and the procedural rules the court must follow. A recent decision from a Florida court illustrates how a trial court’s failure to observe these safeguards can result in reversal. If you are facing contempt proceedings in a Florida family court, consulting a Miami family law attorney is essential to protecting your rights and ensuring compliance with the law.

History of the Case

It is reported that the trial court found the daughter in indirect criminal contempt and imposed a jail sentence after she allegedly violated an injunction for protection against domestic violence in favor of her mother. The trial court’s contempt finding arose from a motion filed by the mother, and the court held a hearing to determine whether the daughter should be held in contempt. The resulting order did not include a purge provision, thereby rendering the contempt finding criminal rather than civil in nature.

It is alleged that the trial court issued an order to show cause regarding the alleged contempt, but the order failed to include a statement of the essential facts constituting the contempt charge. Instead, the order only specified the time and place of the hearing and attached the motion for contempt without incorporating a sworn affidavit or outlining the factual basis of the alleged contempt. The daughter challenged the contempt finding on appeal, asserting that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida dissolution proceedings involving minor children, accurate and internally consistent child support calculations are essential. The Florida Child Support Guidelines, codified in a section of the Florida Statutes, mandate a structured approach based on each party’s income and time-sharing responsibilities. If a court fails to comply with such guidelines when issuing a support order, there may be grounds for seeking review, as demonstrated in a recent Florida ruling. If you have questions about your rights or obligations with regard to child support, you should consult a Miami family law attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties participated in a four-day bench trial concerning the dissolution of their marriage and the establishment of child support obligations for their two minor children. The trial court’s final judgment dissolved the marriage, incorporated the parties’ marital settlement agreement, and adopted a parenting plan. As part of the judgment, the trial court ordered the father to pay the mother approximately $400.00 per month in child support until April 1, 2027, at which point the obligation would be reduced to approximately $150.00 per month for the support of one child.

It is alleged that the trial court attached a Child Support Guidelines worksheet to the judgment as required by Florida law. However, the figures in the attached worksheet conflicted with the child support amounts detailed in the final order. Specifically, it is reported that the worksheet table listed the father’s monthly obligation as approximately $150.00 for two children until April 1, 2027, after which it increased to approximately $400.00 for one child until March 30, 2033. This directly contradicted the amounts stated in the final judgment, effectively inverting the payment schedule. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida’s child support framework is designed to ensure that children receive consistent financial support from both parents based on their ability to pay. Central to this framework is the requirement for both parties to disclose complete and accurate financial information. Courts rely on this data to apply the statutory child support guidelines under section 61.30, Florida Statutes. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling, when the statutory and procedural requirements are met, trial courts have broad discretion in determining child support awards. If you are seeking or contesting child support in Florida, a Miami family law attorney can help ensure compliance and protect your financial interests.

Case Setting

It is reported that the father initiated a paternity and child support action following the parties’ separation. He requested that the court establish paternity, adopt a parenting plan, allocate parental responsibility, and determine an appropriate child support amount. In response, the mother sought child support and joint custody.

It is alleged that both parties filed financial affidavits as required by Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 12.285. The mother also produced supporting documentation, including pay stubs, W-2 forms, and tax returns. The father challenged the sufficiency of the mother’s financial disclosure, claiming she had failed to comply with mandatory discovery requirements. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, a parent’s right to time-sharing with their child is a fundamental component of family law, protected by due process and governed by statutory standards. However, courts may temporarily suspend time-sharing when an emergency arises that could endanger the child. Such suspensions must be followed by a prompt evidentiary hearing to ensure fairness and determine whether the suspension remains warranted. A recent Florida decision illustrates how courts are expected to restore regular time-sharing when the emergency basis for the suspension is no longer supported by evidence. If you are facing a dispute over custody or time-sharing, a Miami family law attorney can help protect your parental rights while prioritizing your child’s welfare.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is reported that the trial court initially suspended the mother’s time-sharing rights on an emergency basis. The suspension was ordered by a temporary, or “emergency,” judge in response to an emergency motion. It is alleged that the mother’s attorney was unavailable for the emergency hearing and was not permitted to appear telephonically, a decision that likely limited the mother’s ability to present her case at the initial stage.

It is further reported that, following the emergency order, the assigned trial judge conducted a subsequent evidentiary hearing to evaluate whether the suspension should remain in effect. Both parties were given adequate notice of the hearing and had the opportunity to present evidence and be heard. The court reviewed the evidence, which included the testimony of both parents and documentary exhibits, and determined whether reinstating the prior time-sharing schedule was appropriate. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida divorce proceedings, parties must follow procedural rules to ensure their right to appellate review. Without an adequate record, appellate courts are constrained in their ability to review the lower court’s findings. A recent Florida divorce case illustrates how the absence of a trial transcript and the failure to raise issues in a rehearing can lead to the summary affirmance of a trial court’s judgment. If you are involved in a divorce and considering an appeal, it is critical to work with a Miami family law attorney who understands the importance of procedural preservation.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, asserting five alleged errors committed by the trial court. His claims included the award of durational alimony to the former wife, the inclusion of certain expenses in the alimony calculation, the equitable distribution of a Chase Savings Account, the failure to credit him with two years of rent-free residence by the former wife, and the rejection of a purported marital agreement.

Lack of Preserved Error in Divorce Actions

It is alleged that the court reviewed the former husband’s claims in light of his failure to provide a transcript of the proceedings. Four of the five issues depended on the trial court’s factual determinations, credibility assessments, or evidentiary rulings. The court emphasized that it could not reverse decisions based on factual determinations without a transcript or an appropriate alternative. Citing established precedent, the court reiterated that appellants bear the burden of providing an adequate record. Without a trial transcript or a legally acceptable substitute, the appellate court found it could not meaningfully assess these claims. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, courts strive to safeguard the best interests of children in custody proceedings. However, those efforts must not violate the fundamental rights of parents. In a recent Florida custody case, a trial court’s attempt to address a dispute over a child’s school enrollment resulted in a significant modification to the parenting plan without proper notice or hearing, prompting the appellate court to reverse the order. If you are involved in a dispute over parental rights, it is essential to retain a Miami family law attorney who can ensure your rights are protected throughout the proceedings.

Case Setting

It is reported that the parties’ marriage was dissolved through a final judgment entered in 2021 that incorporated a marital settlement agreement and parenting plan. The parenting plan required shared parental responsibility and joint decision-making regarding major issues such as education. The plan also specified that the child would attend public kindergarten unless the parties agreed otherwise.

It is alleged that the mother later filed a relocation petition, which the father opposed with a counter-petition seeking sole decision-making authority over the child’s education. In August 2024, the trial court denied both petitions, thereby maintaining the status quo of shared parental responsibility. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the equitable distribution of marital property must reflect fairness and be grounded in the evidence presented at trial. While courts may deviate from a 50/50 split when justified, the rationale must be based on statutory factors and competent proof. A recent Florida ruling highlights how both the allocation of assets and liabilities must align with the record. If you are involved in a divorce with complex financial issues, working with a Miami family law attorney can help ensure your interests are properly represented.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is reported that the parties purchased a twenty-acre property in 1992 with the initial goal of raising exotic parrots and later developing a bed-and-breakfast. After the husband relocated to Chicago in 1998, the wife remained in Florida and continued to maintain and operate the property and associated businesses. The husband ceased contributing financially in 2000 but benefited from shared tax filings and business deductions over the ensuing years.

It is alleged that the wife refinanced the property in her name to relieve the husband of liability and subsequently took out a home equity line of credit, from which she gave the husband $100,000. At trial, the court adopted the wife’s forensic accountant’s analysis, which apportioned 80% of the property’s $3.3 million value to the wife, based on her continued maintenance and investment. However, the trial court split the property-related liabilities equally and deducted hypothetical closing costs and depreciation recapture taxes from the property’s value. The husband appealed, challenging the unequal asset split, the equal liability allocation, and the reduction for speculative costs. He also contested the denial of attorney’s fees. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida’s child welfare system, the rights of caregivers to participate in dependency proceedings are governed by specific statutory provisions. When a caregiver seeks to oppose a change in a child’s placement, they must meet statutory criteria to obtain party status. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida decision in which the court quashed a trial court order granting caregivers limited party status because the statutory prerequisites were not met. If you are a caregiver or relative involved in a child placement dispute, consult a knowledgeable Miami family law attorney to understand your rights and obligations.

History of the Case

It is reported that a child, K.J., was removed from parental custody shortly after birth due to the mother’s substance abuse and placed with non-relative caregivers. Over nine months later, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) moved to transfer custody of K.J. to a maternal aunt in order to reunify K.J. with a sibling. The caregivers opposed the transfer and sought limited party status under section 39.522(3)(c)4.a., Florida Statutes.

It is alleged that the trial court granted the caregivers limited party status to contest the proposed change in placement. The court reasoned that because the caregivers had maintained custody for at least nine months and were willing to adopt, they were entitled to participate in the proceedings to determine the child’s best interests. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida divorce proceedings, courts are charged with distributing marital assets equitably and ensuring that each party receives fair treatment under the law. However, unequal distribution of assets, particularly when it is based on the destruction of nonmarital property, requires a clear factual basis. A recent Florida ruling demonstrates that a court’s decision to grant an equalizing payment must be supported by competent and substantial evidence, especially when the payment is rooted in claims of spoliation. If you are involved in a divorce involving complex asset division, it is essential to retain a Miami family law attorney who can help you protect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the parties were married for ove a decade years. During the marriage, the husband amassed a substantial collection of memorabilia and personal items, many of which were classified as nonmarital property. After the parties separated, the former wife destroyed a number of these items, including vintage posters, books, photographs, sports memorabilia, and personal keepsakes. The trial court determined that this conduct warranted an unequal distribution of assets and awarded the former husband an equalizing payment of approximately $137,776.

It is alleged that the trial court justified this unequal distribution by allowing the former husband to retain the full value of his Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account, which exceeded that of the former wife’s account by a significant margin. The court found that this deviation from equal distribution was appropriate as a remedy for the loss of nonmarital assets caused by the former wife’s conduct. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

When a party to a divorce seeks to challenge a final judgment on appeal, they must provide the court with a sufficient record to support their claims. Without a transcript of the trial or a properly preserved objection, courts are generally required to affirm the lower court’s ruling. A recent Florida decision emphasizes the importance of preserving issues for appellate review, particularly when appealing findings related to alimony and equitable distribution. If you are navigating a contested divorce, it is essential to work with a Miami family law attorney who can take the steps necessary to protect your interests.

History of the Case

It is reported that the former husband filed an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered by the Miami-Dade Circuit Court. He alleged several errors, including the trial court’s award of durational alimony to the former wife, the inclusion of certain expenses in the alimony calculation, the division of funds in a Chase savings account, the denial of credit for the former wife’s use of the marital home, and the court’s determination that no enforceable marriage agreement existed between the parties.

It is alleged that the former husband specifically claimed that the former wife failed to request durational alimony in her petition. He further argued that the trial court erred in using expenses that would no longer exist after the divorce when calculating the wife’s need for support. Additionally, he challenged the distribution of the Chase savings account, asserting that he was entitled to a greater share. The former husband also contended that the former wife’s two years of rent-free residence in the marital home should have been credited against future alimony obligations. Finally, he asserted that the trial court improperly rejected the existence of a marital agreement. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated: