Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

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.

What it Takes to Seek a Timesharing Modification in Florida

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

For many parents, events in their lives may trigger within them a desire to reconnect with the children from whom they’ve become distant. Depending on the perspective of the child’s other parent, this may not always be easy. A recent case originating in Palm Beach County is a useful reminder to all Florida parents that, even if your desire to forge a closer relationship is strong, you cannot demand a change in your timesharing based solely upon proving that you’ve gotten your life in order. Simply getting your life back on track doesn’t amount to the sort of change in circumstances recognized by Florida law that would allow a court to change your timesharing schedule, according to a Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling.

The case, which involved ex-spouses C.R. (father) and S.R. (mother), was based on a complicated, although not entirely uncommon, set of facts. The husband and wife had one minor child together when they divorced in 2008. As part of that divorce judgment, the court ordered shared parental responsibility with the mother as the primary residential parent. The father had visitation twice a week, on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

Florida Man’s Non-Payment Wasn’t Alimony or Child Support, So Contempt Charge Was Inappropriate

Published on: May 20, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

When you go through a divorce in Florida, you may be ordered to make payments to your ex-spouse for various different reasons. While the preferred outcome is to make all payments in full and on a timely basis, it is nevertheless important to understand the difference in possible punishments for failing to pay different kinds of obligations. In one recent case in North Florida, the First District Court of Appeal threw out a finding of contempt against an ex-husband, ruling that the payment he failed to make on time was neither child support nor alimony, so he was not subject to the trial court’s contempt powers.

In this case, a couple from the Jacksonville area, S.S. (husband) and A.S. (wife), divorced, and the trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife $343 per month in child support and $200 per month from his military pension, starting on Dec. 1, 2014. On Dec. 4, the husband wrote the wife a $343 check but also expressed his intention not to pay the remaining $200. Although the husband eventually did pay the additional $200 on Dec. 22, the wife had already filed a request with the court to find the husband in contempt. The wife argued to the trial judge that she deemed the $343 check to be the $200 sum her husband owed her plus $143 of the $343 of the child support obligation. The trial judge approved of the wife’s “election” to construe the $343 sum in the fashion that she did, and the judge held the husband in contempt for failing to pay his full child support obligation on a timely basis.

Appeals Court Sides With South Florida Mom in Religious Upbringing Dispute

Published on: May 13, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

In any case involving the divorce of two parents, one of the most important issues the parents will have to resolve will pertain to the religious upbringing of the child. Hopefully, the parents will have similar views or backgrounds regarding religion or alternatively will be able to work cooperatively in the best interest of their child to put a plan into place regarding the religious training of the child. Unfortunately, that does not always happen, as a recent case involving a Jewish family from Palm Beach County showed. As the Fourth District Court of Appeal‘s ruling demonstrated, courts will generally give a parent significant latitude in making these decisions as long as the decisions he or she makes are not proven to be harmful to the child.

The couple in this case, W.S. (father) and E.S. (mother), were the parents of two children and divorced in 2011. The parents reached a marital settlement agreement that gave both of them shared parental responsibility. All major decisions about the children, including religious upbringing, were to be made collectively by the parents whenever that was possible. Problems emerged three years later when, according to the father, the mother began, with no input from the father, immersing the children in Orthodox Judaism, including enrollment in an Orthodox after-school program and introduction of Orthodox teachings and customs at home. The children had, according to the father, been raised only under Reform Judaism prior to that time.

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.

Constitutional Due Process Protections and Your Florida Domestic Violence Case

Published on: April 25, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A South Florida man made a significant mistake when he arrived at court for a hearing in September 2014. He assumed “this was simple.” He didn’t hire a lawyer, and his wife did. When he left court, he had an injunction for protection against domestic violence entered against him, even though he had received less than three business days’ notice that his wife would accuse him of physical abuse at the hearing. When the husband did hire a lawyer to represent him on appeal, he got the injunction overturned by the Fourth District Court of Appeal because the short notice he received violated his due process rights. The man’s case is a stern reminder to assume nothing about any court hearing, always take them seriously, and take every step available to protect yourself, including hiring counsel.

The case arose from the troubled marriage of Palm Beach County couple M.V. (husband) and K.V. (wife). The wife went to court in the summer of 2014, seeking a protective injunction. She accused her husband of both stalking her and destroying her personal property. The trial judge declined to issue the injunction, concluding that the assertions the wife made were not enough to meet the legal requirements for issuing a protective injunction. The judge told the wife, however, that she could supplement her allegations with additional evidence to meet the legal standards. The court scheduled another hearing for Wednesday of the next week.

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.

Florida Appeals Court Tosses Out Contempt Order Due to Violation of Husband’s Due Process Rights

Published on: April 13, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A man who had fallen hundreds of thousands of dollars behind on alimony to his ex-wife was potentially facing a six-month jail sentence for civil contempt before successfully appealing. The 2d District Court of Appeal threw out the punishment in the contempt order because, by imposing a punishment of incarceration in a prospective fashion, the order violated the husband’s Due Process right to have a hearing on whether or not he had the present ability to pay the amount necessary to purge himself of contempt.

The divorcing couple, E.B. (husband) and C.J. (wife), had been married for nearly three decades. They arrived at a marital settlement agreement that the trial court incorporated into the couple’s divorce decree. The husband agreed to pay the wife $125,000 per year in alimony and maintain a $1 million life insurance policy naming the wife as the beneficiary. The husband eventually fell behind on his alimony and his premium payments on the insurance policy.

Florida Appeals Court Throwns Out Dating Violence Injunction Due to Lack of ‘Imminent Threat’ of Additional Violence

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

If your ex-boyfriend or -girlfriend punched you, giving you a black eye in the process, that might make you concerned for your well-being. If, in addition, your home had been vandalized the month before, this might serve, in conjunction with the physical violence, to raise your concern even higher. However, as a recent 5th District Court of Appeal ruling demonstrates, the law regarding injunctions against dating violence requires very specific levels of proof, and one act of violence coupled with an anonymous act of vandalism are not enough to trigger the issuance of an injunction.

The woman seeking the injunction, C.S., had been in a dating relationship with V.N. that was at its end in the spring of 2015. When it ended, V.N. sent C.S. two emails expressing regret over the relationship’s demise, but C.S. did not view them as threatening. In May of that year, someone vandalized her home’s air conditioner and pool, but she did not know who committed the act. Then, in June, V.N. arrived at C.S.’s home to pick up some of his personal things. A physical altercation ensued, with V.N. twisting C.S.’s arm and giving her a black eye.

Default Judgments and Their Impact on Your Florida Family Law Case

Published on: March 24, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

When you fail to follow the judge’s instructions in a court order, there are usually negative consequences that happen as a result. A court can do many things to punish a party that does not follow court orders. One option — which is what happened in this case — is that the judge strikes the non-compliant party’s pleadings. That means that it is as if the party had never filed his complaint (or answer) with the court, at all. In family law cases, though, even if your spouse has his pleadings struck by the court, the law still affords him certain rights, and requires you to prove certain things, as a recent 5th District Court of Appeal case showed.

In that case, H.L. (husband) and R.L. (wife) were in the process of getting divorced. With any divorce action, the Florida court rules require each spouse to make certain disclosures to the other. These disclosures involve providing certain financial information and documentation to the other side to facilitate the case going forward.