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

Parenting plans and timesharing arrangements can be modified when circumstances change, but challenging a signed settlement agreement requires clear evidence of unfairness or improper conduct. In a recent Florida case, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a request to set aside a parenting-related settlement agreement, emphasizing the high bar for undoing such agreements and the deference given to trial court discretion in matters involving child custody. If you are involved in a custody dispute and have questions about how you can protect your parental rights, it is prudent to speak to a Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the mother and father entered into a settlement agreement regarding parenting issues, including timesharing and school designation, as part of their divorce proceedings. Reportedly, the father later sought to set aside or modify the agreement, claiming that the terms were unfair or no longer served the best interests of the child.

It is alleged that the trial court reviewed the motion and determined that no sufficient basis existed to set aside the agreement. The trial court also declined to modify the parenting plan or change the designated school, finding that the agreement remained in the child’s best interests. The father challenged the trial court’s rulings and requested a new determination based on the alleged inequity of the original agreement and the trial court’s refusal to change the parenting plan.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, courts are required to calculate child support in a manner that is fair and consistent with statutory guidelines. This includes accurately determining a parent’s income during any applicable retroactive period and ensuring that the final judgment reflects that calculation. A recent Florida case highlights what can go wrong when these requirements are not followed and why it is essential for parties to carefully scrutinize support orders to protect their financial interests. If you have questions about your rights with regard to child support, it is advisable to talk to a Miami child support attorney as soon as possible.

Factual Background and Procedural History

It is reported that the Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Program issued a final administrative support order against the father, which included an award of retroactive child support. The administrative law judge was presented with income records showing the father’s actual earnings during the relevant retroactive period.

Allegedly, despite this, the judge based the retroactive support calculation on the father’s current income rather than using the available historical data. The father then challenged the order, seeking a new hearing and corrected order. Specifically, the father argued that the administrative law judge miscalculated the amount owed and failed to attach a required child support guidelines worksheet to the final order. He further stated that the omission of the child support worksheet made it difficult to determine how the court arrived at the support amount. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Domestic violence cases often involve intense legal battles, with courts weighing allegations, evidence, and the need for protection. In a recent Florida decision, the court discussed the legal standards for obtaining such protective orders before upholding a final injunction against domestic violence. If you have questions about domestic violence injunction, having a knowledgeable Florida family law attorney on your side can make all the difference in protecting your rights and future.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant appealed a trial court’s decision granting the plaintiff’s request for a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence. The dispute arose after the plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction against the defendant following an incident in which the defendant kicked the plaintiff, leading to an arrest. The defendant later admitted to committing the act of battery during a recorded jail call.

It is alleged that following the initial injunction, the plaintiff petitioned for a permanent injunction, also requesting exclusive use and possession of the marital home. After a full hearing, the trial court determined that the plaintiff met the burden of proof, establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had committed domestic violence. The trial court found that the defendant failed to prove self-defense, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff engaged in behavior that would justify forceful retaliation. Based on these findings, the trial court entered a final injunction against the defendant for a period of two years. The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the injunction and failed to exercise discretion in evaluating the circumstances. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Property division in divorce cases is often a battleground, especially when significant assets like the marital home have appreciated in value. The timing of asset valuation can make a substantial difference in how property is distributed, and courts must carefully assess the appropriate date to ensure fairness. For example, in a recent Florida decision, the court ruled that a trial court erred by valuing the marital home at the time of trial rather than at the date of the parties’ separation. If you are going through a divorce involving property division, you should speak to an experienced Florida family law attorney about how you can protect your financial interests.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is reported that the parties were married in 2000 and later separated in 2015. The trial court found that both parties had contributed to the marital home’s purchase and initial improvements, but after the separation, the husband remained in the home while the wife ceased contributing to mortgage payments, repairs, or maintenance costs. Despite this, the trial court determined that the home’s value should be assessed as of the trial date rather than the separation date, citing passive appreciation.

The husband moved for rehearing, arguing that the valuation should be based on the separation date since he had maintained the property for years alone without financial support from the wife. He further contended that the trial court improperly considered the wife’s earlier financial contributions, as they occurred before the separation. The trial court denied the motion, leading the husband to appeal. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Interstate child custody disputes can be among the most challenging legal battles, requiring courts to navigate complex jurisdictional laws while ensuring fairness to both parents. For example, if a parent does not have notice of key communications in a case, any ruling related to said communications may be unjust, as discussed in a recent Florida decision. If you are involved in a multi-state custody case, understanding your legal rights is crucial, and consulting an experienced Florida family law attorney can make all the difference.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married in Tennessee in 2017 and had a child together. The father later spent significant time in Key West, Florida, while the mother and the child primarily resided in Tennessee. In December 2023, the mother filed for divorce in Tennessee, stating that the child lived with her in Knoxville and requesting joint custody. Two days later, the father filed for divorce in Florida, also seeking joint custody and asserting that the child lived with him in Key West.

It is alleged that both parties filed motions to dismiss the other’s case, each arguing that their respective state had jurisdiction over the custody matter. The Tennessee court held a hearing and determined that it needed to communicate with the Florida court to establish which state had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Child custody and paternity disputes often lead to intense legal battles, especially when parents were never married. When a father acknowledges paternity of a child, they should have equal parental rights as the child’s mother, as explained in a recent Florida case that demonstrates the evolving landscape of parental rights and the importance of understanding Florida’s family law statutes. If you are navigating a custody dispute or seeking to establish paternity, it is crucial to consult with an experienced Florida family law attorney to protect your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the mother sought review of a trial court’s order, finding that the father had established paternity and denying the mother’s Emergency Verified Motion for Child Pick-Up Order. The mother argued that the trial court erred in determining that the father’s paternity had been established, as neither party had formally petitioned for a paternity ruling. The mother further asserted that the trial court should have granted the child a pick-up order because the father had no legal custodial rights over the child.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Parents involved in international custody disputes will often seek the return of their child via a Hague petition. While such petitions can be useful tools, they are not foolproof, as exceptions can apply that prevent the return of a child, as demonstrated in a recent Florida decision in which the court found that the mother had met the legal burden for exceptions under the Hague Convention. If you are involved in an international custody dispute, it is in your best interest to consult an experienced Miami divorce attorney regarding your options.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the parents, both Peruvian citizens, were previously married in Peru and later divorced in 2015. Their divorce decree granted them joint custody of their child, though the child primarily resided with the mother. In September 2021, the mother traveled with the child to Florida with the father’s written consent for a temporary stay, but she did not return on the agreed date. More than a year later, the father initiated proceedings under the Hague Convention, seeking the child’s return to Peru.

Reportedly, the father argued that the mother had wrongfully retained the child in the United States in violation of his custodial rights. The mother defended against the petition, invoking two exceptions under the Hague Convention: (1) the “well-settled” child exception, which applies when a child has adapted to a new environment after more than one year of wrongful retention, and (2) the “mature child objection” exception, which allows the court discretion to deny return if the child is sufficiently mature to express a preference. The trial court denied the father’s petition, ruling that the child had become well-settled in Florida and had expressed a clear objection to returning to Peru. The father appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the division of property in divorce cases must be supported by legally sufficient findings that justify any deviations from an equal division of marital liabilities and assets. This was emphasized in a recent Florida decision in which the court held that a trial court erred in assigning a marital loan solely to one spouse without adequate justification. If you are contemplating seeking a divorce, it is in your best interest to consult a Miami divorce attorney about how you can protect your financial interests.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife filed for divorce after a short-term marriage lasting under four years. Allegedly, four months before filing, she took out a $20,000 loan in her name alone, asserting that the funds were used to consolidate marital debt, cover pregnancy-related expenses, and repay a personal loan from a friend. She argued that these financial obligations were incurred during the marriage and should be treated as marital liabilities.

Reportedly, the husband denied knowledge of the loan and contended that he should not be responsible for any portion of it. He admitted, however, that he did not contribute to the payment of pregnancy-related expenses or inquire into how those obligations were covered. The trial court ruled in favor of the former husband, assigning full responsibility for the loan to the wife, citing the short duration of the marriage and her decision to obtain the loan in her name without informing her spouse. The wife appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In Florida, the rules of procedure grant parties the broad discretion to withdraw their cases, including dissolution proceedings. A recent Florida decision reaffirmed this principle, holding that a spouse who voluntarily dismisses a petition for dissolution of marriage retains the right to do so, provided there are no pending counterclaims. If you are involved in a dissolution proceeding, it is important to understand your rights and obligations under Florida law and you should consult an experienced Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, seeking both the termination of the marital relationship and equal timesharing with the couple’s two minor children. She also submitted a suggested marital settlement agreement, providing equitable distribution and reflecting her requested timesharing arrangement.

Reportedly, the husband responded by filing an answer, waiver, and a request for a copy of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Shortly thereafter, the wife voluntarily dismissed her petition for dissolution. The husband objected to the dismissal, asserting that he had already complied with the monetary terms established in the suggested marital settlement agreement in expectation of a final judgment. He subsequently amended his objection to include additional factual allegations and filed a motion for default against the wife. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

In Florida, post-dissolution proceedings involving child support and timesharing modifications must proceed in a manner similar to initial pleadings. This means that modifications culminate in a final order, and nonfinal decisions are not immediately appealable unless authorized explicitly by appellate rules. This was illustrated by a recent Florida decision that resulted in the dismissal of an appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction. If you are involved in a child support or timesharing dispute, it is crucial to understand the steps you must take to protect your rights, and you should consult an experienced Miami child custody attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the appellant, the wife, sought to modify timesharing and child support following a final judgment of dissolution. Allegedly, the wife filed an initial supplemental petition for modification in October 2017 and later filed an amended supplemental petition in March 2022. Both petitions included requests for modifications to timesharing and child support.

Reportedly, after a hearing in December 2022, the trial court denied the former wife’s amended supplemental petition as it pertained to timesharing. Subsequently, in November 2023, the former wife filed a motion for a case management conference, listing various issues she believed remained unresolved, including child support. A short time later, the court issued two orders. Continue reading ›