Articles Posted in Divorce

In Purrinos v Purrinos, the wife appealed the decision of the Miami-Dade divorce court that failed to award her any type of alimony. The parties were married for 16 years. At the time of the dissolution of marriage action, the husband and wife has three young children. The only marital asset was the marital residence. While both parties were employed during the marriage, the husband earned more than the wife. At the trial, the husband testified that he was involuntarily and temporarily employed. However, he expected to find a new job in the future.

In reversing the decision of the divorce court, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the Wife alimony. The court reasoned that while an alimony award was inappropriate at the time of trial because of the husband’s inability to pay at that time, he may possess the ability to pay alimony in the future. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to award the wife a nominal amount of permanent periodic alimony.

Your Fort Lauderdale divorce lawyer should join you and your spouse’s corporation as a party to your dissolution of marriage case if you are requesting the transfer of any of the corporate assets as part of the equitable distribution. In the event that the corporation is not a party to your action, the marital and family law court does not have jurisdiction to order that corporate assets to be transferred to you as part of the equitable distribution. In addition, if your spouse is ordered to transfer a corporate asset to you, you may not be able to have the corporation do so and then you would be left with no recourse. Another reason that a corporation owned by you and your spouse should be joined as a party is when both parties have access to the corporate books, checkbooks, bills and personal expenses are paid by the corporation
Joining a corporation is not necessary when a party is not requesting a claim against the corporate entity or an unequal distribution in any of the corporation’s property. In the event that your divorce lawyer in Broward does not join you and your spouse’s corporation, the Florida marital and family law judge can still prevent the disposal of corporate assets or corporate stock to a third party.

The purpose of civil contempt is to obtain compliance with a child support, alimony or general court order and can only be used when the contemnor has the ability to comply.

First, your divorce lawyer in Fort Lauderdale must have the court determine whether the defaulting party has willfully violated the court order. Next, the court must determine the appropriate remedial measure. If the Florida marital and family law judge orders that the contemnor is to be jailed, the court must make a specific finding that he or she has the present ability to pay the purge.

In Aburos v Aburos, the former husband appealed an order finding him in indirect civil contempt and requiring him to be incarcerated which was entered by Miami divorce court Judge Amy Steele Donner for failing to pay the former wife alimony and child support pursuant to the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. Specifically, the former wife asked the trial court to find the former husband in contempt of court for his failure to pay $1,700 per month for permanent periodic alimony and $1,693 per month in child support.

Disagreements over finances are one of the leading causes for divorce filings in Fort Lauderdale. When money is tight or investments are performing poorly, even couples who are happily married may encounter disagreements. However, before you talk to a divorce lawyer about alimony, child custody matters and a parenting plan, perhaps you should make some adjustments to your finances by having a financial divorce from your spouse.

In the past, a majority of financial decisions were made by the husband. Today, women depend on men far less than they did years ago. Women are now employed and have their own investments. In light of the climbing divorce rate, women do not want to be in a position where they rely upon men for alimony, support and maintenance.

A large percentage of marital disagreements deal with how money is spent. In addition, some couples have different investment objectives, methods and risk tolerances. South Florida couples with strict budgets who struggle to make ends meet may also fight about which bills to pay first.

In Greenwald v Greenwald, the husband and wife were married on May 18, 2004. Fourteen months later, the parties filed for divorce in Miami-Dade. In support of her claim for permanent alimony, the wife claimed that the husband induced her to quit her job were she earned $100,00 per year. At trial, e-mail evidence proved that this claim was false since the wife wanted to quit her job prior to the marriage.

While the wife’s request for permanent periodic alimony was denied, Judge Scott Bernstein awarded her $65,000 in attorney’s fees and costs to be paid by the husband. In reversing the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to the wife, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the Miami divorce court should have denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. The court reasoned that the wife made a claim for permanent alimony in a short-term marriage which is rarely successful, the case went to trial on the permanent alimony issue, the basis of the claim was false and the wife turned down a favorable opportunity to settle the alimony matter before trial in a lump sum payment of $36,000.

Many residents of Fort Lauderdale will file for divorce. In fact, when you hire a divorce attorney in Broward you will often try to mitigate the impact of child custody, time-sharing and shared parental responsibility litigation on your children. The following statistics should remind you why it is important to amicably resolve your divorce case.

1. While 1/2 of children experience their parents divorce, 1/2 of those children will also experience their parents second divorce.

2. 1 out of every 10 children who have seen their parents divorce will also experience 3 or more divorces.

During the recession, filing for divorce is a difficult decision. With housing values depressed and jobs disappearing in South Florida, divorce has become a luxury for many residents. Nowadays, there is often not enough money to maintain separate households or to hire a divorce attorney in Fort Lauderdale to go to court and fight over alimony, child support and child custody matters.

Lately, many clients have been living together during and after their divorce. Some have filed for bankruptcy. Others have realized that they are upside down with the values of their homes. In many cases, marital and family law attorneys in Miami-Dade have dealt with clients who only require equitable distribution of debt during their divorce case.

During 2008, there were 838,000 divorces granted in 44 states, a slight decline from the previous year when 56,000 divorces were granted. These days working class couples are vulnerable to file for a divorce since they feel the impact of unemployment. However, the recession has created many unhappy couples who would like to file for divorce but will be required to wait until the economy rebounds.

If you file for divorce in Broward, your attorney may suggest that you retain a forensic accountant to value the marital business. However, in these uncertain economic times the values of marital assets are volatile and may fluctuate after trial and before the marital and family court in Florida enters the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. In the case of Mistretta v. Mistretta, the Miami Herald is reporting that First District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in revisiting the equitable distribution due to the economic recession

In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered on August 25, 2008, the trial court distributed the marital business to the Husband, assigned a date of valuation of October 31, 2007 and ordered the Husband to make a one time cash equalization payment of $845,000 to the Wife. The Husband requested a new trial and valuation of the business relying upon the economic recession that began in December, 2007 as “newly discovered evidence.” The trial court granted the Husband’s motion.

Rehearing or a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence is permitted when it appears that the evidence will possibly change the result if a new trial is granted, the evidence has been discovered since trial, the evidence could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence, the evidence is material to the issue and the evidence is not just cumulative or impeaching. The alleged “newly discovered evidence” cannot simply show some change in circumstance since the trial.

When a third grade teacher recently got divorced, she had trouble explaining the concept to her two children, ages 4 and 7. While the children had some knowledge about a divorce, the wife decided to read books that dealt with child custody matters such as time-sharing, shared parental responsibility and parenting plans in order to help her children understand what their parents were going through. Now, divorce attorneys in Miami-Dade and Broward may recommend that you purchase a book by Kristi Schwartz titled Divorced Together For the Sake of Children. The book was released on January 22, 2010 and may help Florida children understand about a divorce.

Sandy T. Fox, Esquire, a divorce lawyer in Broward and Miami-Dade, represented the Former Wife in an enforcement proceeding in the Florida marital and family law court located north of Fort Lauderdale. The equitable distribution provision of the marital settlement agreement provided that the Former Wife was to receive $141,263.72 from the Former Husband. The Former Husband retained his real property in New York. While no date of payment to the Former Wife was specified in the marital settlement agreement, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage ordered the parties to comply with the marital settlement agreement.

The Former Wife filed a motion to enforce the equitable distribution provision of the final judgment since the Former Husband had only made 5 incremental payments. At the hearing, she testified that she was to receive $141,263.72 upon entry of the final judgment. On the otherhand, the Former Husband testified that the Former Wife was to be paid upon the sale of his New York property.

On appeal in the case of Crespo v. Crespo, the Former Wife argued that the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence as to the intent of the parties. In affirming the decision of the divorce court located north of Ft. Lauderdale, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the marital settlement agreement contained a latent ambiguity since it failed to specify the time in which the Former Wife was to receive payment from the Former Husband. The court explained that a latent ambiguity arises when the language in a contract is clear and intelligible and suggests a single meaning, but some extrinsic fact or extraneous evidence creates a necessity for interpretation or a choice among two or more possible meanings.

Contact Information