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

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:

Published on: | by

Injunctions for protection against stalking are powerful legal tools intended to shield individuals from harassment and fear. However, the courts must ensure that such relief is granted only when the evidence meets the high legal threshold set forth in Florida law. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights this point, reaffirming that courts must apply an objective, reasonable person standard in evaluating whether conduct qualifies as stalking under the Florida Statutes. If you are involved in a family law matter that includes allegations of stalking, it is crucial to work with a trusted Miami attorney who can help you take the steps necessary to protect your rights.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the parties were previously in a romantic relationship that ended in December 2021. More than a year after the relationship ended, the petitioner sought an injunction for protection against stalking, citing repeated communications and appearances by the respondent. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in which the petitioner, the respondent, and the respondent’s father testified.

Allegedly, the petitioner testified that the respondent called and texted him numerous times in early 2022, though he did not recall the contents of the messages, aside from the respondent asking to speak before he hung up. It is reported that the respondent also appeared at the petitioner’s workplace on several occasions during the same time frame but did not engage with him directly. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The legal landscape surrounding spousal support in Florida has undergone a significant transformation following the legislature’s 2023 decision to eliminate permanent alimony. A recent Florida divorce case demonstrates how courts must now reconsider alimony determinations when final judgments are pending on appeal after July 1, 2023. For anyone involved in a Florida divorce where alimony is at issue, this ruling serves as a critical reminder of how legislative changes can directly impact the outcome of a case. If you are navigating a divorce in Florida, it is essential to consult with a knowledgeable Miami divorce attorney who understands the current statutory framework.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the former husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage and requested permanent alimony after a 24-year marriage. The trial court granted the request and entered a final judgment awarding the former husband permanent alimony in the amount of $1,750 per month. The trial court rendered its decision in February 2023, several months before the July 1, 2023, effective date of Florida’s revised alimony statute. The former wife filed a timely appeal from the judgment, challenging the alimony award on multiple grounds.

It is alleged that the former wife objected to the award of permanent alimony based on the newly enacted provisions of section 61.08, which, effective July 1, 2023, abolished permanent alimony in Florida. She argued that because her appeal was still pending after the statutory change took effect, the trial court’s alimony ruling should be reconsidered under the new law. The former wife also challenged the trial court’s findings related to the former husband’s financial need and her own ability to pay alimony. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Florida law allows parties to agree that a private judge may resolve their disputes in lieu of a traditional courtroom setting. When properly authorized, private judges have the same authority as trial judges to make binding rulings. A recent Florida case reinforces the legal enforceability of such agreements and the limitations on trial courts when parties have delegated decision-making authority to a private judge. If you intend to end your marriage, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Miami divorce attorney at your earliest convenience.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that during their divorce, the parties entered into a written agreement stipulating that all litigation between them would be presided over by a private judge. The agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree and later reaffirmed. After the former husband passed away, disputes arose between the former wife and the estate of the former husband, particularly regarding entitlement to attorney’s fees.

It is further reported that the parties continued to submit matters to the private judge, including an earlier decision on entitlement to fees. However, the trial court later ruled that it, not the private judge, had jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees owed. The former wife objected and filed a petition seeking to prohibit the trial court from asserting jurisdiction over issues delegated to the private judge. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration concerning its ruling on jurisdiction, prompting the former wife to seek relief from the court. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

In Florida, annulments are granted under narrow circumstances and require proof of a legal defect in the marriage. Simply regretting a marital decision or believing that a spouse entered the union under false pretenses does not meet the legal standard. This was illustrated in a recent Florida case in which the court discussed the evidentiary burden a party must meet to justify annulment and the deference courts give to established marital contracts. If you want to end your marriage, it is important to understand your options, and you should consult a Miami family law attorney as soon as possible.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is reported that the husband sought an annulment of his marriage on the grounds that the marriage was never consummated and that the wife allegedly married him solely for immigration purposes. The husband further claimed the wife committed fraud by entering into the marriage without the intent to maintain a true marital relationship.

Allegedly, the trial court held a hearing and reviewed the testimony and evidence presented by both parties, after which the court found that the husband’s assertions were contradicted by the record. Reportedly, there was substantial evidence that the parties had, in fact, consummated the marriage and that the wife had not entered into the marriage solely to secure immigration benefits The husband challenged the trial court’s denial of his petition for annulment, asserting that the marriage was voidable due to fraud and should not be treated as a valid legal union. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Parenting plans and timesharing arrangements can be modified when circumstances change, but challenging a signed settlement agreement requires clear evidence of unfairness or improper conduct. In a recent Florida case, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a request to set aside a parenting-related settlement agreement, emphasizing the high bar for undoing such agreements and the deference given to trial court discretion in matters involving child custody. If you are involved in a custody dispute and have questions about how you can protect your parental rights, it is prudent to speak to a Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the mother and father entered into a settlement agreement regarding parenting issues, including timesharing and school designation, as part of their divorce proceedings. Reportedly, the father later sought to set aside or modify the agreement, claiming that the terms were unfair or no longer served the best interests of the child.

It is alleged that the trial court reviewed the motion and determined that no sufficient basis existed to set aside the agreement. The trial court also declined to modify the parenting plan or change the designated school, finding that the agreement remained in the child’s best interests. The father challenged the trial court’s rulings and requested a new determination based on the alleged inequity of the original agreement and the trial court’s refusal to change the parenting plan.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, courts are required to calculate child support in a manner that is fair and consistent with statutory guidelines. This includes accurately determining a parent’s income during any applicable retroactive period and ensuring that the final judgment reflects that calculation. A recent Florida case highlights what can go wrong when these requirements are not followed and why it is essential for parties to carefully scrutinize support orders to protect their financial interests. If you have questions about your rights with regard to child support, it is advisable to talk to a Miami child support attorney as soon as possible.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Program issued a final administrative support order against the father, which included an award of retroactive child support. The administrative law judge was presented with income records showing the father’s actual earnings during the relevant retroactive period.

Allegedly, despite this, the judge based the retroactive support calculation on the father’s current income rather than using the available historical data. The father then challenged the order, seeking a new hearing and corrected order. Specifically, the father argued that the administrative law judge miscalculated the amount owed and failed to attach a required child support guidelines worksheet to the final order. He further stated that the omission of the child support worksheet made it difficult to determine how the court arrived at the support amount. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Domestic violence cases often involve intense legal battles, with courts weighing allegations, evidence, and the need for protection. In a recent Florida decision, the court discussed the legal standards for obtaining such protective orders before upholding a final injunction against domestic violence. If you have questions about domestic violence injunction, having a knowledgeable Florida family law attorney on your side can make all the difference in protecting your rights and future.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant appealed a trial court’s decision granting the plaintiff’s request for a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence. The dispute arose after the plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction against the defendant following an incident in which the defendant kicked the plaintiff, leading to an arrest. The defendant later admitted to committing the act of battery during a recorded jail call.

It is alleged that following the initial injunction, the plaintiff petitioned for a permanent injunction, also requesting exclusive use and possession of the marital home. After a full hearing, the trial court determined that the plaintiff met the burden of proof, establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had committed domestic violence. The trial court found that the defendant failed to prove self-defense, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff engaged in behavior that would justify forceful retaliation. Based on these findings, the trial court entered a final injunction against the defendant for a period of two years. The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the injunction and failed to exercise discretion in evaluating the circumstances. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Property division in divorce cases is often a battleground, especially when significant assets like the marital home have appreciated in value. The timing of asset valuation can make a substantial difference in how property is distributed, and courts must carefully assess the appropriate date to ensure fairness. For example, in a recent Florida decision, the court ruled that a trial court erred by valuing the marital home at the time of trial rather than at the date of the parties’ separation. If you are going through a divorce involving property division, you should speak to an experienced Florida family law attorney about how you can protect your financial interests.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is reported that the parties were married in 2000 and later separated in 2015. The trial court found that both parties had contributed to the marital home’s purchase and initial improvements, but after the separation, the husband remained in the home while the wife ceased contributing to mortgage payments, repairs, or maintenance costs. Despite this, the trial court determined that the home’s value should be assessed as of the trial date rather than the separation date, citing passive appreciation.

The husband moved for rehearing, arguing that the valuation should be based on the separation date since he had maintained the property for years alone without financial support from the wife. He further contended that the trial court improperly considered the wife’s earlier financial contributions, as they occurred before the separation. The trial court denied the motion, leading the husband to appeal. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated: