Divorce

The Amount Of Sexual Partners For Women And The Impact On Divorce

Published on: June 6, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

It is very common for Fort Lauderdale divorce lawyers to be told about the numerous sexual partners a spouse has had when they ask questions about adultery and its impact on the divorce, equitable distribution and alimony. Florida is a no-fault divorce state but adultery is a factor that the trial Judge can consider in awarding alimony or as justification for an unequal distribution of assets. However, it is not too often that the Court is concerned with the amount of sexual partners a wife has had and whether that has caused the divorce.

New research from the Institute of Family Studies has revealed that divorce rates have decreased for women who marry as virgins but have stayed the same for those who had one to two premarital sex partners. Women who have had 10 or more sexual partners prior to their marriage saw the highest increase in divorce rates. Interestingly, women who have premarital sex partners have consistently higher rates of divorce than those with three to nine partners.

Sexual behaviors have changed in recent years since younger people are having sexual encounters outside of their relationship. Sexual attitudes and behaviors continue to change. However, the extent of younger people hooking up has been embellished by the media.

Florida Divorce Case Results In Murder For Hire Of FSU Law School Professor

Published on: June 2, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

It is being reported today that the death of Daniel Markel, a former Florida State University law school professor, has been linked to a murder-for-hire scheme. Markel was shot in the head inside his garage at his home during the middle of the day on July 18, 2014.

Law enforcement officers in Hallandale Beach, Florida have arrested Sigfredo Garcia for his alleged role in the 2014 death of Daniel Markel. On May 25, 2016, Garcia was charged with shooting Markel only two days after he was interviewed by investigators. He has pled not guilty and is presently being held without bond in Leon County, Florida. Law enforcement officers intend to charge a second man, Luis Garcia, in connection with the homicide.

It is believed that the murder of Daniel Markel is related to the desire of his former wife’s family to have his former wife, Wendi Adelson, and their two minor children relocate from Tallahassee, Florida to Miami, Florida. It is, however, unknown who hired the killers.

Florida Appeals Court Gives Wife New Chance to Prove that Both Her Husband and She Were New York Residents

Published on: May 6, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

When your spouse files a divorce action, it is almost never a good idea not to act upon that filing. In fact, it is almost always a good idea to retain counsel and begin addressing the matter as soon as you possibly can. In one case recently heard by the Second District Court of Appeal and ongoing in the Florida court system, a wife is still trying to get a Florida default divorce judgment overturned because, according to her, neither her husband nor she was ever a resident of Florida.

G.M. (husband) and N.M. (wife) got married in New York in 2000. They resided in New York at that time and remained in New York for several more years. As the marriage deteriorated, the husband filed for divorce, doing so in New York. The wife, as part of that case, petitioned the trial court for an award of spousal support. After the wife made the alimony request, the husband voluntarily dismissed his divorce petition. Shortly thereafter, the husband filed again, except this time, he filed in Pinellas County. Florida law, like the laws in other states, imposes certain residency requirements before its courts can assume jurisdiction over a case. In Florida, this means that one spouse must have been a Florida resident for at least six months. The husband in this case alleged that his wife met this requirement.

Governor’s Veto Kills Florida Alimony Reform Bill

Published on: April 18, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

Alimony reform in Florida is dead for at least one year after an April 15 veto of SB 668 by Governor Rick Scott. The veto represents the second time Scott has vetoed a bill that would have updated Florida’s alimony laws. While the most recent bill removed certain retroactivity provisions from the alimony reforms, which Scott cited as problematic in vetoing the previous bill, the governor again issued a veto, this time due to certain additional reforms addressing timesharing laws, which he said ran the risk of “putting the wants of a parent before the child’s best interest.”

Had it become law, the reform measure would have made several major changes in the way courts resolve divorce and child custody cases. The new law would have ended permanent alimony and would have set up alimony calculation guidelines as well. These guidelines would have assessed the amount and duration of alimony based upon each spouse’s income and the length of the marriage. The most recent bill also would have created a presumption in favor of alimony for all marriages except those lasting two years or less.

Intentionally Diminishing Marital Assets and Your Florida Divorce Case

Published on: March 17, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

Some divorce cases go forward with both sides proceeding amicably, respectfully, and ethically. Unfortunately, this is not the case in all situations. Sometimes, a spouse may intentionally engage in wrongdoing as part of the divorce process, including improper dissipation of certain marital assets. When that happens, the law has a process for protecting the other spouse. The key in these situations is offering the right kind of proof of intentional misconduct and making sure that the trial court issues the right kind of finding. A recent case that originated in Broward County illustrated this, as the 4th District Court of Appeal threw out an equitable distribution of a couple’s assets because the court failed to make the necessary findings about the wife’s intentional misconduct.

In the divorce case of J.M. (wife) and M.M. (husband), the husband accused the wife of intentional misconduct that resulted in the dissipation of marital assets. In divorce cases, generally speaking, trial courts should not include in the equitable distribution of the couple’s assets anything that was “diminished or dissipated” during the period of time while the divorce case was pending. There is one definite situation where that is not the case, however: when one spouse commits intentional acts of misconduct that caused the diminution. When that happens, it is appropriate to include those spent assets in the misbehaving spouse’s portion of the equitable distribution.

Florida Court Decides 1.5% Portion Not to Small to Consider in Equitable Distribution Case

Published on: March 10, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

In Latin, there is a phrase, “de minimis,” that essentially translates to “too minor to warrant consideration” or “so small that it can be disregarded.” This phrase comes up in legal matters sometimes, when an amount is so small that the court simply declines to consider it. Of course, a sum of money that might be insignificant to someone else might be extremely important to you. In a recent Orlando case involving a a wife’s portion of her husband’s pension, the Fifth District Court of Appeal threw out a trial court’s ruling that declined to award the wife anything from that pension. While the wife’s portion may have only been a tiny fraction of the total pension, that amount was not “de minimis” to her, in the court’s opinion, especially given that, over time, that amount would total several thousand dollars.

The couple in the case, M.B. and A.C., were married for a little more than three years when the husband filed for divorce. Eleven months into their short marriage, the husband retired from his job at the Yonkers School Board of Education, where he’d worked for 31 years. After the husband initiated the divorce proceeding, the trial court in Orlando dissolved the marriage and made a ruling on equitable distribution.

Making Sure You Get a Fair Opportunity to Present Your Case in Your Florida Divorce

Published on: March 3, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

When you are part of a contested divorce case, arguably the most important day in the entire process is the day (or days) of the final hearing in your case. That’s when you and your spouse, through your lawyers, put on your evidence and make your arguments. Now, imagine doing that without an advance warning about when the final hearing was to take place. Fortunately, the Constitution’s Due Process Clause bars such a situation, and, citing that clause, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment in one recent divorce because the wife did not receive proper notice that a hearing before the court would be her case’s final hearing.

The wife in this case was A.S., who married N.S. (husband) in India in 2013. Shortly after the wedding, the husband moved to Florida. A year later, the husband filed for divorce. The husband asserted that the marriage was irretrievably broken and that the couple shared no marital personal property or real estate that would require division. The wife submitted a response that asserted that the marriage was not irretrievably broken. She also challenged the husband’s claims about property division and informed the court that she lived in India, lacked immigration clearance to travel to Florida, and lacked the financial means to hire a lawyer.

Imputing Income to Your Ex-Spouse in Your Florida Alimony Case

Published on: February 10, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

In an alimony case, one of the more important issues you may face is deciding whether or not you or your spouse is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. This issue was at the center of one South Florida man’s appeal of his divorce judgment. The man successfully persuaded the 4th District Court of Appeal to send the case back to the trial court because that lower court had imputed no income to the wife despite clear evidence that she was voluntarily underemployed.

In this case, R.M. (husband) and C.M. (wife) from Broward County had sought a divorce after 30-plus years of marriage. As part of the trial court’s judgment of dissolution in the case, that court awarded alimony to the wife. In calculating that alimony amount, the trial court imputed no income to the wife. It was on this basis that the husband appealed the alimony award.

Your Ex-Spouse’s New Partner and Your Florida Alimony Obligation

Published on: February 3, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

One of the more frustrating turns of events for individuals ordered to pay alimony is the discovery that the ex-spouse to whom they are making support payments has moved in with a boyfriend or girlfriend. In some situations, your ex-spouse’s decision to cohabitate with another person may be valid grounds for modifying or terminating your alimony payments. Whether you succeed in obtaining a modification or termination of your obligation depends largely on the facts of your ex-spouse’s new relationship and, in some cases, which terms you put in your marital settlement agreement. As a recent Central Florida case illustrates, even if you succeed, it is important to keep in mind that there are limits to what the law can do for you.

One way to succeed is to prove that your ex is involved in a “supportive relationship,” as defined by Florida Statutes Section 61.14. That’s what happened in a recent Volusia County case. The ex-husband went to court alleging that his ex-wife, to whom he paid alimony, had entered into a supportive relationship under the statute and that he should be entitled not only to a termination of his obligation to make future alimony payments, but also to have his obligation retroactively terminated going all the way to the date that the ex-wife moved in with her partner. The ex-husband succeeded in proving the existence of a supportive relationship involving the ex-wife, and the trial court retroactively terminated her alimony as the husband had requested.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Alimony Award for Failing to Provide for Wife’s Needs

Published on: January 27, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A North Florida trial court’s decision to award an ex-wife only enough alimony to cover her insurance expenses was recently thrown out by the 1st District Court of Appeal as not proper under the requirements of the Florida Statutes. In this wife’s case, failing to award enough alimony to cover her shelter and medications required reversal. The ruling reminds those involved in divorce matters that the law demands consideration of all of the recipient’s necessities as established during the couple’s marriage, and it also serves a clear warning of the potential risks of proceeding without legal counsel.

The couple, J.R. (husband) and T.R. (wife) from Clay County, recently divorced after a long-term marriage. The husband had an income of more than $78,000 per year. The wife, who did not have a high-school degree, had an annual income of less than $16,500. When the trial court came to address the issue of alimony, the judge concluded that the wife’s needs consisted only of her insurance, including both auto and health. The cost for these expenses was $600 per month, so the trial court awarded the wife $600 monthly in permanent alimony.