Articles Posted in Divorce

Published on: | by

It is well established under Florida law that, absent a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, marital assets are subject to equitable distribution in divorce actions, while separate assets are not. It is not uncommon for a court to mischaracterize an asset, however, and order a separate asset to be divided among the parties. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion clarifying the classification of assets in divorce actions, in a matter in which it ultimately reversed the trial court’s determination. If you have questions about your rights with regard to equitable distribution, it is smart to speak to a Miami divorce lawyer.

Factual History and Procedural Background

It is reported that the husband and wife were married but filed an action to dissolve their union. The trial court ultimately issued a final judgment, distributing the parties’ community assets. The husband then sought review of the final judgment issued by the trial court. One of the key issues in the appeal concerned the inclusion of one of the husband’s bank CD accounts in the equitable distribution schedule. The husband argued that this account was a nonmarital asset, as he had acquired it ten years before the marriage and maintained sole control over it throughout the marriage. The trial court, however, had classified the account as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution.

Classification of Assets in Divorce Actions

On appeal, the court found that the sole issue raised by the husband that warranted review was the trial court’s classification of the CD account. The court explained that under Florida law, assets acquired by one party before marriage are generally considered nonmarital assets unless there is evidence of enhancement, commingling, or intent to gift the asset to the other spouse during the marriage. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many Florida divorce actions, one party will seek alimony from the other. In determining whether to grant alimony requests, among other things, the courts will evaluate both parties’ income. Additionally, if one party is not employed, the courts may impute income to them. Regardless of whether a court assessment relies on an actual or imputed income, however, it must consider the net, rather than gross, amount, as discussed in a recent Florida case. If you have questions about how you can protect your financial health while dissolving your marriage, it is smart to meet with a Miami divorce lawyer at your earliest convenience.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the husband and the wife were married for 14 years before the wife initiated a divorce action. During the divorce proceedings, both parties presented evidence and testimony, including input from their accountants and a vocational expert who assessed the wife’s employability. The trial court determined that the husband had a monthly net income of $21,000 and the ability to pay alimony, while the wife’s monthly financial needs amounted to $10,319. The court imputed an annual gross income of $60,000 to the wife, noting her lack of effort to seek employment, along with an additional $2,756 in monthly investment income.

It is reported that based on these calculations, the trial court awarded the wife durational alimony of $2,600 per month for seven years. Additionally, the wife requested attorney’s fees, arguing financial need and the husband’s ability to pay. However, the trial court denied this request, citing the wife’s engagement in litigation that was primarily intended to harass, involving non-meritorious and baseless claims. The wife appealed the trial court’s decision. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Pursuant to Florida law, with few exceptions, any assets obtained during a marriage are considered marital property, while property obtained prior to the marriage remains separate. Applying this general rule can become complicated in divorce actions in which the parties mingle separate and marital assets. As discussed in a recent Florida divorce action, when marital assets are used to pay for a non-marital asset, any appreciation in the value of the property is a marital asset as well. If you have questions with regard to your rights in a dissolution proceeding, it would benefit you to consult a Miami divorce lawyer at your earliest convenience.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married in 2005. In 2015, the wife filed for dissolution of the marriage. The husband responded with a counterpetition. The trial court issued a final judgment of dissolution, which was subsequently appealed. In the initial appeal, the court determined that the husband’s Miami property was a non-marital asset and remanded the case to determine if there was any appreciation in its value during the marriage.

Reportedly, upon remand, the trial court found that the Miami property had depreciated during the marriage and concluded that the wife was not entitled to any share of the appreciation. The wife filed a motion for rehearing, which the court denied pursuant to an order agreed upon by the parties. The wife then appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many marriages, one party earns the bulk of the income while the other takes care of the home. If a couple with such an arrangement decides to divorce, the lesser-earning party may be eligible for alimony. Further, if the court errs in determining the amount of alimony owed, they may be able to seek an adjustment, as discussed in a recent Florida case. If you want to learn more about how a divorce may impact your rights, it is prudent to speak with a Miami divorce lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the parties were married in 1986 and had three children who had all reached the age of majority prior to the end of the marriage. The wife filed for divorce in 2015, and the husband filed a counter-petition. During their marriage, the husband was the sole income earner, while the wife was a homemaker.

Reportedly, after a trial in 2019, the court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage. The appellate court reversed this judgment in 2020, however, because of an error committed by the trial court when it rejected the wife’s request to reopen the case. On remand, additional trial proceedings were held, and a new final judgment was entered in November 2022. The wife then appealed the final judgment. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

In Florida divorce proceedings, it is not uncommon for parties to enter into a marital settlement agreement that defines their post-dissolution rights and obligations. Such agreements are contracts and are enforceable as such, which means if one party fails to abide by the terms of the agreement, the other party can seek a contempt ruling from the court. Parties can only be held in contempt if the contract provisions clearly allow for such a finding, though, as discussed in a recent Florida case. If you want to pursue a divorce, it is important to understand the implications of your decision, and it is advisable to talk to a Miami divorce lawyer about your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the husband and wife divorced; as part of their dissolution proceeding, they entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA required the wife to execute a quitclaim deed (Deed 1) conveying her interest in the marital residence to the husband, to be held by her counsel until certain conditions were met. The MSA also stipulated a lump sum alimony payment from the husband to the wife, with a default leading to the release of a second quitclaim deed (Deed 2) conveying the husband’s interest in the marital residence to the former wife.

Allegedly, the wife moved to have the husband and his attorney held in contempt for not delivering Deed 1, alleging that the attorney promised to have the former husband sign both deeds and deliver Deed 1 but failed to do so. At the contempt hearing, it was acknowledged that the wife’s counsel eventually received Deed 1, but the wife sought attorney’s fees and costs for the delay. The trial court found both the husband and his attorney in contempt and ordered them to share the former wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. The attorney appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

People who decide to end their marriage have the right to determine their rights and obligations and to memorialize them in a marital settlement agreement. Any agreement entered into with regard to the division of property and debts, custody, and other family law issues must be entered into knowingly and willingly, however. As such, if a party alleges that they signed a marital agreement under duress, the court may set the agreement aside. A party making such assertions must comply with any procedural rules and file their objections in a timely manner, though, as explained in a recent Florida opinion. If you are considering seeking a divorce, it is important to understand your options, and you should confer with a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Background

It is reported that after twenty-eight years of marriage, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA), where the wife agreed to pay a substantial share of her income to the husband. The husband then filed for a simplified dissolution of marriage, resulting in a final judgment that ratified the MSA. Over a decade later, the wife ceased payments as outlined in the MSA, prompting the husband to seek enforcement of the judgment, along with an order of contempt and attorney fees.

Allegedly, in response, the wife sought to set aside the MSA and judgment, claiming lack of consideration, duress, unconscionability, and fraud. She invoked the analysis from a Florida prejudgment challenge case and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. The trial court, following an evidentiary hearing, found that the wife had signed the MSA under duress and fear induced by the husband, relying exclusively on the case cited by the wife without addressing the timeliness of the wife’s claims. The husband appealed. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Many divorcing couples in Florida develop marital settlement agreements to determine their rights and obligations. While the courts will generally enforce the agreement as to the ex-spouses, it is unlikely that a third party has any right to pursue claims under the agreement. This was illustrated in a recent Florida divorce action in which the court ruled that a man was not obligated to pay a debt owed to his ex-mother-in-law pursuant to the terms of his marital settlement agreement. If you have questions about how a divorce could impact your finances, it is smart to speak to a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that a woman sued her former son-in-law for breach of contract, claiming she was an intended third-party beneficiary of a marital settlement agreement (MSA) between him and her daughter. The woman and her mother had loaned money to the defendant during his marriage. Following the divorce, the MSA was created to settle the couple’s assets and liabilities. The agreement listed debts, including the loans from the plaintiff and her mother that the defendant was supposed to pay.

It is reported that approximately twenty-one months later, the plaintiff sued the defendant for not paying the amounts specified. The defendant sought summary judgment, asserting that the MSA did not intend to benefit the plaintiff or her mother. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, determining that the MSA’s purpose was to divide the couple’s assets and liabilities without expressing a clear intent to benefit the plaintiff or her mother. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many divorce cases, one of the biggest issues is how marital property, including retirement income, should be divided. As such, many couples will develop marital settlement agreements defining their rights and obligations with regard to retirement. If the terms of such agreements are unclear, however, it could create challenges down the road, as demonstrated in a recent Florida divorce action in which the court discussed the construction of marital settlement agreements. If you need help protecting your interests in a divorce proceeding, it is advisable to confer with a Miami divorce attorney.

Factual Background and Procedural Setting

It is reported that in 2001, the husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage from the wife. They subsequently entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) to resolve their marital issues, which was incorporated into the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage in 2002. Twenty years later, the wife moved to reopen the dissolution and enforce a provision of the MSA regarding the distribution of retirement benefits.

Allegedly, the disputed provision, labeled “Personal Property,” outlined the distribution of the husband’s retirement benefits from his 457 plan with Pinellas County, Florida, and the Florida Retirement System (FRS) pension. The wife argued that she was entitled to half of all FRS benefits received by the husband, including those accrued after the dissolution, based on the language of the MSA. The husband, however, contended that the provision only entitled the wife to half of the marital portion of the FRS benefits, which included benefits accrued during the marriage. The trial court determined that the language of the MSA was clear but interpreted it to mean that the wife was entitled to half of what the husband had at the time of the agreement. The wife appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida is an equitable distribution state. As such, if a couple decides to end their marriage via divorce, the court will distribute any marital property between them in a manner that it deems fair and just. Equitable distribution only applies to marital property, however; separate property remains the sole asset of the spouse that owns it. As such, a property characterization of property in a divorce action is essential for obtaining a just outcome. As illustrated in a recent Florida ruling delivered in a divorce case, if a court misclassifies property or issues a final judgment that does not comply with its oral statements at trial, such errors may qualify as grounds for pursuing an appeal. If you want to learn more about how a divorce may impact your property rights, it is wise to consult a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is alleged that the parties, who had been married for twelve years, led largely separate lives, residing in different cities and managing their finances independently before the husband filed a petition for dissolution. At trial, the court ruled that most assets and liabilities were nonmarital, attributing them to the respective parties based on their individual acquisition or handling during the marriage.

Reportedly, the court emphasized the parties’ separate financial activities and concluded that an equal distribution would lead to unjust enrichment. The written final judgment conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement, though, designating all assets and liabilities as nonmarital, contrary to the court’s acknowledgment of marital ownership of certain vehicles. The wife then appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida divorce actions, the courts will typically issue judgments of dissolution establishing the parties’ rights and obligations with regard to disputed issues like child custody, spousal and child support, and property division. If a court fails to adequately demonstrate the reasoning behind its decision or neglects to take into consideration key evidence, either party may be able to pursue an appeal. In a recent Florida opinion issued in a divorce action, the court explained the grounds for challenging a final judgment of dissolution. If you intend to end your marriage, it is smart to speak with a Miami divorce attorney regarding what measures you can take to protect your rights.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the husband and wife divorced. During the final hearing, the trial court orally explained its findings on the record. The court subsequently issued a final judgment of dissolution, defining rights and obligations with regard to alimony, timesharing and custody rights, and relocation. The husband then appealed, arguing several points of error. Specifically, he challenged the adequacy of the record on appeal, particularly regarding affidavits related to financial situations, which he failed to include. Additionally, he disputed the start date for child support payments, as the trial court set it before the child’s residency with him ended.

Grounds for Challenging a Final Judgment of Dissolution

On appeal, the court largely affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained that while the final dissolution judgment did not precisely adhere to the criteria outlined in the Florida Statutes, the trial court provided oral findings during the final hearing to justify its rulings on relocation, alimony, and timesharing. Further, the court found these findings were backed by ample evidence presented during the proceedings, indicating that the decisions were well-supported despite not aligning perfectly with statutory parameters. Continue reading ›