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

An agreement making alimony nonmodifiable does not necessarily limit collection to the rules governing ordinary debts. Once a divorce judgment incorporates the agreement and orders compliance, unpaid support may remain enforceable through that judgment. A recent Florida decision upheld withholding of 65% of the former husband’s Social Security payments to collect alimony arrears. The court rejected his argument that the obligation was merely contractual and subject to a 25% garnishment ceiling. If you are seeking overdue support or challenging an income withholding order, a Miami alimony attorney can review the agreement, judgment, and applicable collection rules.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties’ 2003 dissolution judgment approved and incorporated their marital settlement agreement without merging it into the judgment. It expressly ordered compliance with the agreement and reserved jurisdiction to enter further orders. The agreement established declining monthly alimony payments that would end when the former husband turned 65 and stated that the obligation could not be modified.

Allegedly, the Social Security Administration later determined that the former husband was disabled. In 2017, the former wife obtained a $240,000 judgment for alimony arrears. In 2020, the court entered an income withholding order directing garnishment of 65 percent of his disposable earnings from Social Security disability payments Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A child may grow up using a name that differs from the name on official records. When a parent seeks to make that change legal, the court must consider the governing statute and the child’s current best interests. A recent Florida decision rejected the idea that a mother lost the right to request a name change because she had not made it during the child’s first year. The court also explained why an earlier unsuccessful petition did not control the later request on this record. A Miami family law attorney can help parents present the evidence supporting a child’s name change.

History of the Case

It is alleged that Suzette Paul petitioned to change her minor child’s first and last name. The father filed an unverified answer opposing the request but did not appear at the final hearing. The mother testified about the child’s preferences at school, limited contact with the father, and her own role as the sole custodial and caregiving parent for nearly all of the child’s life.

Reportedly, the child’s licensed mental health counselor also testified that the change was in the child’s best interest. The evidence established that others knew the child by the desired name and that the child wanted to share the mother’s surname. The trial court nevertheless denied the petition, and the mother appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A parenting hearing can reshape a child’s home, school, and relationship with each parent. Those changes require fair notice, a meaningful opportunity to participate, and evidence supporting the child’s best interests. A recent Florida decision ordered a new trial after a hearing proceeded without the mother or her attorney and resulted in a dramatic change to the child’s living arrangements. The ruling illustrates how scheduling problems and inadequate evidence can undermine a parenting judgment. If you are facing a disputed parenting plan or relocation request, a Miami family law attorney can help protect your opportunity to present your case.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the father petitioned to establish paternity, shared parental responsibility, timesharing, and child support. The child had lived full-time with the mother, and the father had never exercised overnight timesharing. The mother later filed a counterpetition seeking relocation, long-distance timesharing, and related relief.

Allegedly, 40 days before the scheduled one-hour final hearing, the mother requested a continuance. Her reasons included counsel’s preplanned travel, incomplete court-ordered mediation, and insufficient hearing time. This was her first continuance request. Her attorney promptly sought a hearing on the motion, but the magistrate’s office said none was available before trial. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Family court orders can overlap when a divorce case and a dependency case involve the same children. Even a valid time-sharing plan may not be enforceable while a dependency court’s no-contact order remains in place. A recent Florida decision affirmed denial of a parent’s requests for enforcement and reunification, although the trial court gave the wrong procedural reason. Parents navigating orders from different courts can consult a Miami child custody attorney to determine where to file and what conditions must be met before contact resumes.

Facts and History of the Case

Reportedly, the parties’ dissolution judgment included a time-sharing plan. A separate dependency case produced a no-contact order affecting one parent’s contact with the children. The parent filed motions in the divorce case to enforce the judgment’s plan and reunify contact by modifying the no-contact order. She also had a supplemental petition to modify time-sharing pending in the dissolution action.

Allegedly, the trial court denied the enforcement and reunification motions because it believed the parent needed to proceed by petition rather than motion. The parent appealed. The court reviewed the record and agreed that the filing label was not the proper basis for denial. The no-contact order was not a final judgment, and the parent had already filed the supplemental petition needed to modify the final time-sharing judgment. The court nevertheless examined whether it could grant the requested relief for other reasons supported by the record. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A home may count as a marital asset for divorce purposes even when the deed names only one spouse. That classification affects equitable distribution, but it does not necessarily make both former spouses owners of record. In a recent Florida decision, the court reversed a partition judgment that treated a marital-property label as proof of joint title. If you are resolving ownership of a home after divorce, you should consider both the judgment and the deed. A Miami equitable distribution attorney can help examine how each document affects the parties’ rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, one spouse purchased a home around the time of the 2006 marriage. The deed and mortgage named only that spouse, and the other spouse was never added to title. The parties later divorced. Their 2023 dissolution judgment classified the house as marital property, awarded sole possession to the titled spouse, and assigned that spouse sole responsibility for the mortgage. It did not direct a transfer of ownership or order an equalizing payment.

Allegedly, about six weeks after the divorce judgment, the other former spouse filed a separate partition action. She argued that the marital-property classification meant the parties jointly owned the house and that she could require its sale. The titled spouse opposed partition because she held no interest on the deed. The trial court concluded that the parties owned the property as tenants in common, ordered it sold, and directed an equal division of proceeds without credit for the titled spouse’s mortgage obligation. He appealed that partition judgment. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Parents may need evidence about a proposed relocation, but that need does not automatically permit access to years of private family messages. A recent Florida decision quashed orders requiring a parent and her mother to produce every text between them over a broad period. The court found no meaningful balance between possible relevance and their privacy interests. If you are facing relocation litigation, it is advisable to consult a Miami child custody attorney about focused discovery that addresses the dispute without exposing unrelated personal communications.

Case Setting

Reportedly, the parties were involved in a divorce case and a dispute over one parent’s request to relocate with their two children. The opposing parent believed the relocating parent and her mother had planned a move to Ohio over time. To test that theory, he requested all text messages between the two women from October 2021 forward. The relocating parent objected that the demand was overbroad and intruded on both her privacy and her mother’s. She noted that the grandmother had already been deposed about any role in the relocation decision.

Allegedly, the opposing parent later served the grandmother with a subpoena seeking all messages exchanged with her daughter from January 2024 through production. The relocating parent again objected and sought a protective order. After a hearing, the trial court denied protection and ordered both women to produce the messages. The orders imposed some limits on use and later disposal but did not restrict production by subject or meaningful date range. The parent sought extraordinary appellate review before disclosure occurred. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Courts can use civil contempt to enforce support orders, but incarceration is lawful as a coercive measure only when the person has a present way to comply. A recent Florida decision reversed a contempt order because it did not identify any specific funds available to satisfy the purge amount. The ruling illustrates the difference between a finding that support was unpaid and the separate proof needed before a court may jail someone for nonpayment. If you face support enforcement or contempt proceedings, a Miami child support attorney can help you understand the financial evidence and procedural protections at issue.

Facts and Procedural History

Reportedly, the parties married in 2020 and had a child. During their divorce, the trial court entered a temporary support order in February 2025 after finding that the husband had substantial monthly income. The order required temporary support, current child support, and payments toward arrears. After the wife asserted that he failed to comply, the court entered an initial contempt order and required a payment of $12,852 to avoid incarceration.

Allegedly, the wife later filed another contempt motion, stating that the husband had made one payment but missed further obligations. After an August hearing, the court set a purge amount exceeding $65,000. An amended September order found that the husband had the present ability to pay, questioned his credibility, and directed him to surrender if he did not pay. He was jailed, later released, and then jailed again following another hearing. His forensic accountant testified that his income and accessible assets could not cover the purge, while the wife offered no witnesses at that hearing. The husband appealed several orders, but later trial court action left only the amended September contempt order for appellate review. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Changing the label on a child support dispute does not necessarily open the federal courthouse doors. Federal civil rights law does not ordinarily authorize a federal trial court to overturn a state paternity or support judgment. A Florida federal decision shows how jurisdictional limits, state-action requirements, and pleading standards can defeat an attempted constitutional challenge. If you are disputing paternity, enforcement, or a family court order, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Miami family law attorney about what remedies you may be able to pursue.

History of the Case

Allegedly, a self-represented plaintiff asked a federal district court to review state proceedings and set aside a 2010 paternity determination and related child support orders. The plaintiff asserted that he was not the children’s father and that fraud and due process violations led to the orders. He invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and also advanced state-law theories.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The county line should not become an avoidable barrier to seeking protection from domestic violence. Florida’s statute uses the word “circuit,” which can permit filing outside the parties’ home county when both counties belong to the same judicial circuit. A recent Florida decision confirms that this specialized rule controls over general county-based venue law. An improper dismissal may delay consideration of requested protection. If venue, protective relief, or related family proceedings affect you, speak promptly with an experienced Miami family law attorney about the proper court and available remedies.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the petitioner and respondent both resided in Lee County, which lies within Florida’s Twentieth Judicial Circuit. The petitioner sought an injunction for protection against domestic violence but filed the petition in Collier County. Collier County also lies within the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. The parties had a related family matter pending in Lee County.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In a time-sharing dispute, what a parent puts in a pleading can shape the case long after filing. A parent seeking modification must establish a substantial and material change in circumstances and show that the requested arrangement serves the child’s best interests. A recent Florida decision shows how parties may bind themselves through their assertions and how a missing hearing transcript can restrict appellate review. If you face modification, enforcement, or contempt proceedings, a knowledgeable Miami family law attorney can help present and preserve the issues shaping your family’s future.

History of the Case

Allegedly, a Maryland court dissolved the parties’ marriage in 2017 and entered custody orders in 2018. The orders granted joint legal custody and joint decision-making authority. The child lived with the mother in Florida, while the father remained in Maryland and received time-sharing during summers, spring break, and alternating holidays. A Florida circuit court later registered the Maryland decrees.

It is alleged that the mother petitioned for modification in June 2024, asserting a substantial and material change in circumstances and accusing the father of violating time-sharing and communication obligations. She asked to limit him to supervised visitation in Pensacola. The father counter-petitioned, claimed that the mother had breached communication and decision-making requirements, and sought majority time-sharing plus ultimate authority over health and education. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
19790 W Dixie Hwy #412
Miami, FL 33180
Toll Free: 800.596.0579Phone: 305.932.6542Fax: 305.932.6453

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Sandy T. Fox, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design