Martindale-Hubbell
The National Advocates
The National Advocates
National Board of Trial Advocacy
The Florida Bar
Best Lawyers
Client Distinction Award
The National Advocates

Published on: | by

It is not uncommon for a couple to take a practical view of marriage and enter into prenuptial agreements prior to their wedding. Florida courts will typically enforce prenuptial agreements entered into in Florida as long as they were executed in accordance with Florida law. It is not always immediately evident, however, if foreign prenuptial agreements should be upheld. Recently, a Florida court issued an opinion discussing the analysis that must be conducted to determine whether foreign prenuptial agreements are enforceable. If you have questions regarding how a divorce could impact your financial rights and obligations, it is in your best interest to contact a Miami divorce lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the husband and the wife married in Quebec in July 1992. Prior to marrying, they entered into a prenuptial agreement (foreign prenuptial agreement). The agreements stated, among other things, that they adopted the separate property regime set forth by the terms of the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec and that they would pay for any marital expenses in proportion to their respective capabilities.

Allegedly, the parties maintained separate accounts throughout their marriage. They became residents of Florida in 2009. Ten years later, the wife instituted a petition for dissolution of the marriage in which she requested alimony and equitable distribution in accordance with Florida law. In the husband’s response to the petition, he asserted that they largely had separate rather than marital assets and argued that the foreign prenuptial agreement should govern the distribution of any marital property. The case proceeded to trial, after which the court found that the marital residences purchased by the husband were subject to equitable distribution. The husband appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In divorce matters involving children, the courts will generally issue orders establishing the parties’ timesharing and parental responsibility rights. In doing so, the courts’ sole concern is what is in the best interest of the divorcing couples’ children. As such, custody orders are not easily disturbed, and a parent typically must show a significant change in circumstances to obtain a modification. Recently, a Florida court issued an order discussing what constitutes a change that is substantial enough to warrant an alteration of custody rights, in a matter in which the father appealed the denial of his petition for modification. If you need assistance with a custody matter, it is smart to speak to a capable Miami child custody lawyer to evaluate your options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the husband and the wife had two children together, born in 2010 and 2012. They divorced in 2015, and the final judgment of dissolution granted them shared parental responsibility and equal timesharing. Shortly after the divorce, the wife began a relationship with another man. In 2018, the husband filed a petition for modification of the final judgment, seeking a change in timesharing and parental responsibility due to the wife’s harassment of the husband, domestic violence incidents between the wife and the boyfriend, and the wife’s interference with the husband’s custody rights.

Reportedly, the magistrate determined the husband demonstrated a significant change in circumstances, noting that the children were temporarily removed from the wife’s care in 2017 and that there was a significant history of domestic violence between the wife and the boyfriend. Thus, he recommended that the husband be named as the ultimate decision maker on issues pertaining to the children’s health and education and to amend the timesharing to grant the wife visitation every other weekend. The wife filed exceptions to the magistrate’s report and recommendations, which the circuit court granted. The husband then appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Typically, when a party is ordered to pay child support, the obligation lasts until the child receiving the support turns eighteen. In some instances, however, the obligation can extend past the age of majority. Recently, a Florida court discussed the grounds for extending a support obligation in a case in which the plaintiff sought support from her father due to her disabilities. If you are a Miami resident dealing with a dispute over child support obligations, it is advisable to consult a knowledgeable Miami family law attorney to discuss what steps you can take to fight to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was twenty-seven years old, filed a petition seeking child support from her father. The plaintiff had Down Syndrome, which prevented her from obtaining and maintaining gainful employment. When her parents divorced, her father was ordered to pay child support until the plaintiff turned eighteen, but since that time, she relied on her mother for financial support.

Allegedly, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. He further alleged that there was no provision in the order dissolving his marriage that allowed the plaintiff to seek support, and no continued support was sought while the plaintiff was a minor. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. She then appealed.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

It is not uncommon in divorce actions for the parties to develop a marital settlement agreement, which is essentially a contract that sets forth their rights and obligations, or for the court to incorporate the agreement into the final judgment that dissolves the marriage. If a party refuses to comply with the terms of a marital settlement agreement, however, a dispute may arise as to whether an action to enforce the agreement is subject to the statute of limitations that applies to contracts or the one that applies to judgments. Recently, a Florida court addressed this issue in a case in which the wife waited almost twenty years to file a motion to enforce a divorce judgment. If your spouse refuses to comply with the terms of your marital settlement agreement, it is advisable to contact a seasoned Miami divorce attorney to assess your rights and your options for seeking enforcement.

Factual Background

It is alleged that the husband and the wife entered into a marital settlement agreement in 1997. The agreement divided their marital property, business assets, and debts and dictated that the husband was to pay the wife close to half a million dollars, either in a lump sum or in five principal payments, plus interest, which were due each year beginning in 2001. The agreement was incorporated into the final judgment dissolving the marriage, which was issued in April 1997.

It is reported that the husband failed to make any payments as required under the agreement, however. Then, in 2017, one day shy of the twentieth anniversary of the entry of the divorce judgment, the wife filed a motion to enforce the judgment. The court granted the motion and ordered the husband to pay close to one million dollars to the wife based on the amount of principal payments plus accrued interest. The husband appealed, arguing that the wife’s motion was barred by the statute of limitations. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

It is not uncommon for family court hearings to be conducted in front of a magistrate judge in Florida. If parties do not agree with the recommendations set forth in the magistrate’s report they can file exceptions, but in many cases, the magistrate’s recommendations will be adopted regardless. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida case involving the enforcement of a martial settlement agreement, in which an appellate court affirmed an order denying a husband and wife’s exceptions to the report of a magistrate. If you wish to end your marriage or need assistance with another family law matter, it is advisable to seek the counsel of a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural History

The wife filed a petition to dissolve the marriage in 2012. They entered into a marital settlement agreement which was filed with the court and their divorce was finalized later that year. In 2017, the wife filed a motion to enforce provisions of the agreement pertaining to health insurance and life insurance. The trial court referred the matter to a magistrate, who conducted two hearings and then issued a report setting forth recommendations. The husband and wife both filed exceptions to the report but the trial court entered an order denying them. The husband and wife both appealed.

Magistrate Authority in Divorce Cases

On appeal, the husband argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement because the divorce judgment did not expressly incorporate the agreement or order the parties to comply with same. The appellate court rejected this argument noting that the agreement provided that it could be enforced by the court and that courts inherently retain jurisdiction to enforce their orders. The husband further argued that the wife’s action was actually in the nature of a modification and should have been conducted via a supplemental petition. The appellate court rejected this argument as well. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

The Florida courts typically strive to protect the parent-child relationship, and will generally attempt to keep the relationship intact. The courts’ main directive in any custody case is determining an outcome that is in the best interest of the child involved, however, and if it requires terminating parental rights, it will. Recently, a Florida court addressed the issue of when the termination of parental rights is appropriate, in a matter in which the father argued that the court could have employed less restrictive means to protect the child’s interests. If your parental rights are in jeopardy, it is essential that you confer with a Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the trial court held a hearing to determine whether to terminate the father’s parental rights. The court noted that the child was born addicted to amphetamines and had lived with his maternal grandparents since birth. The father was incarcerated and had been since before the child was born and did not know the mother was pregnant prior to the child’s birth. Additionally, he repeatedly questioned whether he was the child’s biological father and suggested that, upon his release in 2025 or 2026, he could do a DNA test to establish if was the child’s father. The court found it in the child’s best interest to terminate the father’s rights. The father appealed.

The Least Restrictive Means Requirement in Termination of Parental Rights Cases

On appeal, the father argued that his due process rights were violated and that the termination of parental rights was not the least restrictive means to protect the child. The appellate court disagreed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The spread of COVID-19 altered the landscape of family law hearings. Specifically, many hearings are held remotely, and the parties use platforms like Zoom to participate. While remote hearings provide a safe and convenient means for courts to resolve issues, technological problems can inadvertently impair people’s rights. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida case in which a father was disconnected during a remote hearing, and his parental rights were terminated. If you have questions regarding your duties and privileges as a parent, it is in your best interest to speak to a Miami child custody attorney.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the trial court scheduled a hearing to address the issue of whether the father’s parental rights should be terminated.  At the time of the hearing, the father was incarcerated. Although he initially refused to appear, he ultimately did by telephone. Before the hearing began, the court placed the father and his attorney in a separate virtual room so that they could communicate confidentially.

Allegedly, the attorney directed the father to stay online and advised him that he would be brought back into the virtual courtroom. The father reportedly expressed that he wished to proceed via video rather than telephone. He was disconnected before the hearing began, however, and never rejoined via telephone or video. It is disputed whether his absence was voluntary or the result of technical issues. Notwithstanding, the trial court proceeded with the hearing over the objection of the father’s attorney. In light of the father’s absence, the Department of Children and Families moved for a default judgment. The court denied the motion and conducted the hearing but ultimately terminated the father’s parental rights regardless. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in conducting the hearing after he was connected. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida law imposes an obligation on all parents to provide financial support for their children. As such, when parents share custody of a child, the courts will frequently order one parent to pay the other parent child support. Generally, child support is based on the income of each parent. If a court determines that a parent voluntarily reduced their earnings, however, the court can impute income to them. Recently, a Florida court issued a ruling discussing imputed income and child support in a case in which the mother appealed the calculation of her support obligation. If you need assistance with a child support issue, it is advisable to meet with a Miami child support attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the mother and father have two minor children. The father filed a petition to establish paternity and obtain custody rights and child support. The mother filed a counter-petition, seeking sole parental responsibility, the majority of timesharing, and child support. Following a trial, the court found that the mother, a self-employed lawyer that typically earned between $14,000 to $20,000 per year, was willingly underemployed.

Allegedly, the vocational expert that testified in the matter stated that the mother could find employment as an attorney, paralegal, or a community association manager if she chose to obtain a license in that field. Based on that testimony, the trial court imputed an income to the mother of $76,000 annually, in part due to the finding that she had a CAM license. The mother appealed on numerous grounds. The appellate court affirmed on all issues except the imputation of income to the mother and the court’s failure to make findings as to net income when calculating child support. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Typically, divorce actions and equitable distribution claims only involve two people. In some cases, though, other parties will have an interest in assets that may be subject to equitable distribution and therefore may intervene in dissolution proceedings. Recently, a Florida court evaluated a third party’s right to challenge a ruling issued in a divorce case, in a matter in which the husband’s mother sought to disqualify the wife’s forensic accountant. If you have questions regarding how your assets may be divided in a divorce, it is smart to speak to a Miami divorce attorney.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the wife filed a petition for dissolution in 2019. Two years prior to filing for divorce, the husband’s mother was involved in commercial litigation relating to entities that she owned. As part of that action, she hired a forensic accountant. The matter was ultimately resolved via a confidential settlement agreement. Subsequently, the wife retained the same forensic accountant to opine as an expert in the dissolution proceedings. The husband’s mother then filed a motion asking the court to disqualify the accountant and a motion to stay the divorce proceedings while the motion to disqualify was pending. The court denied the husband’s mother’s motion to stay, after which she filed a petition for certiorari review.

Third-Party Rights in Divorce Proceedings

On appeal, the appellate court denied the husband’s mother’s petition. In doing so, it noted that in order to be entitled to certiorari relief, a party must demonstrate that a trial court’s order departed from the essential requirements of the law in a manner that will lead to irreparable harm. The appellate court explained that a departure from the critical requirements of the law means that a violation of a clearly established legal principle has occurred, resulting in the miscarriage of justice. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Under Florida law, all parents have an obligation to financially support their minor children. Thus, in many cases in which parents share custody of a child, the courts will find it appropriate to order one parent to pay the other child support. Child support obligations are calculated, in part, based on the parent’s respective income. While income can include financial contributions from outside sources, the courts can only impute income to a party if there is competent evidence that it is appropriate. This was demonstrated in a recent ruling in which the court reversed a trial court’s order granting a modification of a child support obligation on the grounds that the trial determination of a mother’s income was not supported by competent evidence. If you need assistance with a child support issue, it is prudent to contact a Miami child support lawyer as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the mother and the father ended their marriage in 2015. At that time, they entered into a marital settlement agreement that included a determination of child support obligations. In 2017, the mother sought a modification of child support on the grounds that it was warranted due to the father’s recent salary increase, which constituted a substantial change in circumstances. In 2019, the father sought a modification of time-sharing.

Reportedly, the court resolved both motions in 2020 and issued a judgment stating, in pertinent part, that the mother could afford to be a stay-at-home parent because her fiancé covered a substantial amount of her living expenses. The judgment further stated that the fiancé’s payments must be included in the mother’s income for the purposes of calculating child support. The mother challenged the judgment, arguing that the trial court’s determination with regard to her income was improper. Continue reading ›