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, 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:

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: