Articles Posted in Divorce

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

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

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:

Published on: | by

In Florida, the division of property in divorce cases must be supported by legally sufficient findings that justify any deviations from an equal division of marital liabilities and assets. This was emphasized in a recent Florida decision in which the court held that a trial court erred in assigning a marital loan solely to one spouse without adequate justification. If you are contemplating seeking a divorce, it is in your best interest to consult a Miami divorce attorney about how you can protect your financial interests.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife filed for divorce after a short-term marriage lasting under four years. Allegedly, four months before filing, she took out a $20,000 loan in her name alone, asserting that the funds were used to consolidate marital debt, cover pregnancy-related expenses, and repay a personal loan from a friend. She argued that these financial obligations were incurred during the marriage and should be treated as marital liabilities.

Reportedly, the husband denied knowledge of the loan and contended that he should not be responsible for any portion of it. He admitted, however, that he did not contribute to the payment of pregnancy-related expenses or inquire into how those obligations were covered. The trial court ruled in favor of the former husband, assigning full responsibility for the loan to the wife, citing the short duration of the marriage and her decision to obtain the loan in her name without informing her spouse. The wife appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the rules of procedure grant parties the broad discretion to withdraw their cases, including dissolution proceedings. A recent Florida decision reaffirmed this principle, holding that a spouse who voluntarily dismisses a petition for dissolution of marriage retains the right to do so, provided there are no pending counterclaims. If you are involved in a dissolution proceeding, it is important to understand your rights and obligations under Florida law and you should consult an experienced Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, seeking both the termination of the marital relationship and equal timesharing with the couple’s two minor children. She also submitted a suggested marital settlement agreement, providing equitable distribution and reflecting her requested timesharing arrangement.

Reportedly, the husband responded by filing an answer, waiver, and a request for a copy of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Shortly thereafter, the wife voluntarily dismissed her petition for dissolution. The husband objected to the dismissal, asserting that he had already complied with the monetary terms established in the suggested marital settlement agreement in expectation of a final judgment. He subsequently amended his objection to include additional factual allegations and filed a motion for default against the wife. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Discovery is a key component of Florida divorces, as it allows parties to determine one another’s financial status, which in turn allows the courts to determine their rights and obligations. Such disclosure may not be necessary in cases involving prenuptial or antenuptial agreements, however, as discussed in a recent Florida divorce action. If you are contemplating a divorce and are subject to such an agreement, it is important to understand its enforceability, and you should talk to a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting and History

It is reported that the wife and husband executed an antenuptial agreement in 2001, which explicitly stated that the parties agreed not to disclose their financial conditions or the nature and character of their estates and property. Allegedly, the agreement was intended to serve as a settlement framework in the event of a dissolution of marriage. In 2023, the wife filed a petition for divorce and asserted that the terms of the antenuptial agreement exempted her from mandatory financial disclosure.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, issues related to the enforcement of temporary support orders during divorce proceedings must adhere to the principles of finality and jurisdiction. Courts must carefully navigate procedural rules to ensure compliance with interlocutory and final judgments, avoiding errors that could render orders unenforceable. The importance of correctly applying the merger doctrine and procedural rules in family law cases was illustrated in a recent Florida divorce action. If you are involved in a divorce or support enforcement matter, consulting a Miami family law attorney can help protect your rights and ensure compliance with the law.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the husband and wife divorced. The trial court subsequently issued temporary support orders requiring the husband to pay monthly expenses for the wife and their minor child. When the husband failed to comply, the court entered multiple contempt orders and money judgments. After the partial final judgment was entered, the husband moved to vacate the prior support and enforcement orders, arguing they were extinguished by the merger doctrine. The trial court agreed, holding that the temporary support orders merged into the partial final judgment and became unenforceable. The wife then appealed.

The Merger Doctrine in Family Law Cases

On appeal, the wife argued that the trial court erred by applying the merger doctrine to extinguish the temporary support orders and judgments, as the partial final judgment explicitly reserved jurisdiction over support and financial matters. The court agreed with the wife, holding that the merger doctrine did not apply to the unresolved issues of support and enforcement. Continue reading ›