Articles Posted in Divorce

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 ›

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 ›

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 ›

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 ›

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 ›

In many divorce actions, the most contentious issue is how property and assets should be divided. Pursuant to Florida law, the courts generally aim to divide marital property in a fair manner, which in some instances means that they may deem it appropriate to award one party a set-off for an asset or source of income. The courts can only do so if the party awarded the set-off requests it in a pleading, however, as it is considered an affirmative defense. If the courts grant a set-off absent the assertion of it in a pleading, it likely constitutes grounds for appealing the final judgment of divorce. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida divorce action in which the attorneys of the Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A. represented the wife and successfully argued that the court improperly granted the husband a set-off. If you need assistance with a divorce issue, it is smart to meet with an assertive Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is reported that the husband and wife divorced. The wife, who was represented by Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A., subsequently appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The crux of the appeal was the trial court’s decision to award the husband a set-off for the rental value of the marital home. The wife contended that this set-off was improper because the husband had not raised the issue in any prior pleading or motion.

Grounds for Reversing a Final Judgment of Dissolution

On appeal, the court examined the procedural history and relevant legal principles. It pointed out that under Florida Family Law Rules, parties are required to affirmatively state any matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense in their pleadings or motions. Failure to do so results in the waiver of those defenses.

In this case, the husband had not raised the issue of the set-off in any pleading or motion but rather brought it up for the first time during pre-trial proceedings. The court cited precedent emphasizing that affirmative defenses like set-offs must be properly raised to be considered by the trial court, and failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction over the matter. Continue reading ›