Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

Intentionally Diminishing Marital Assets and Your Florida Divorce Case

Published on: March 17, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

Some divorce cases go forward with both sides proceeding amicably, respectfully, and ethically. Unfortunately, this is not the case in all situations. Sometimes, a spouse may intentionally engage in wrongdoing as part of the divorce process, including improper dissipation of certain marital assets. When that happens, the law has a process for protecting the other spouse. The key in these situations is offering the right kind of proof of intentional misconduct and making sure that the trial court issues the right kind of finding. A recent case that originated in Broward County illustrated this, as the 4th District Court of Appeal threw out an equitable distribution of a couple’s assets because the court failed to make the necessary findings about the wife’s intentional misconduct.

In the divorce case of J.M. (wife) and M.M. (husband), the husband accused the wife of intentional misconduct that resulted in the dissipation of marital assets. In divorce cases, generally speaking, trial courts should not include in the equitable distribution of the couple’s assets anything that was “diminished or dissipated” during the period of time while the divorce case was pending. There is one definite situation where that is not the case, however: when one spouse commits intentional acts of misconduct that caused the diminution. When that happens, it is appropriate to include those spent assets in the misbehaving spouse’s portion of the equitable distribution.

Florida Court Decides 1.5% Portion Not to Small to Consider in Equitable Distribution Case

Published on: March 10, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

In Latin, there is a phrase, “de minimis,” that essentially translates to “too minor to warrant consideration” or “so small that it can be disregarded.” This phrase comes up in legal matters sometimes, when an amount is so small that the court simply declines to consider it. Of course, a sum of money that might be insignificant to someone else might be extremely important to you. In a recent Orlando case involving a a wife’s portion of her husband’s pension, the Fifth District Court of Appeal threw out a trial court’s ruling that declined to award the wife anything from that pension. While the wife’s portion may have only been a tiny fraction of the total pension, that amount was not “de minimis” to her, in the court’s opinion, especially given that, over time, that amount would total several thousand dollars.

The couple in the case, M.B. and A.C., were married for a little more than three years when the husband filed for divorce. Eleven months into their short marriage, the husband retired from his job at the Yonkers School Board of Education, where he’d worked for 31 years. After the husband initiated the divorce proceeding, the trial court in Orlando dissolved the marriage and made a ruling on equitable distribution.

Making Sure You Get a Fair Opportunity to Present Your Case in Your Florida Divorce

Published on: March 3, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

When you are part of a contested divorce case, arguably the most important day in the entire process is the day (or days) of the final hearing in your case. That’s when you and your spouse, through your lawyers, put on your evidence and make your arguments. Now, imagine doing that without an advance warning about when the final hearing was to take place. Fortunately, the Constitution’s Due Process Clause bars such a situation, and, citing that clause, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment in one recent divorce because the wife did not receive proper notice that a hearing before the court would be her case’s final hearing.

The wife in this case was A.S., who married N.S. (husband) in India in 2013. Shortly after the wedding, the husband moved to Florida. A year later, the husband filed for divorce. The husband asserted that the marriage was irretrievably broken and that the couple shared no marital personal property or real estate that would require division. The wife submitted a response that asserted that the marriage was not irretrievably broken. She also challenged the husband’s claims about property division and informed the court that she lived in India, lacked immigration clearance to travel to Florida, and lacked the financial means to hire a lawyer.

Shared Parental Responsibility Under Florida Law and Your Child’s Extracurricular Activities

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

A well-known idiom points out that “the devil is in the details.” Divorce and child custody arrangements can be a lot like that. That’s because there are a lot of details, both great and small, that must be addressed in order to create a working shared parental responsibility relationship. Decisions that parents who share joint custody must work together to make may run the spectrum from choosing the child’s schools to religious training and attendance to participation in sports or other extracurricular activities. Whatever the subject matter is, it’s important to understand what the courts can and cannot demand when it comes to a parenting plan. One plan from Southwest Florida got thrown out by the 2d District Court of Appeal recently because it improperly stripped away rights from one of the child’s parents.

The case, which originated in Naples, involved the children of M.L. (father) and A.L. (mother). The couple had a parenting plan in place, but some time later, the mother went back to court seeking a modification. The trial court made a modification to the order, awarding shared parental responsibility to both of the parents but also declaring that “if a child does not desire to attend an extracurricular activity, the child shall not be required to attend.”

Shortage of Proof Leads to Reversal of Florida Woman’s Order of Protection

Published on: February 18, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

A Florida resident who initially obtained an injunction of protection against her ex-boyfriend from a Lee County trial court lost that order when the 2d District Court of Appeal reversed the ruling. The injunction was improper because the woman lacked enough clear evidence that the ex-boyfriend had engaged in acts of domestic violence, other than an “isolated” incident that took place nearly two years before the woman went to court.

The origins of the case were a series of ominous but arguably circumstantial events. In the spring of 2013, C.J. decided to move out of the apartment she had been sharing with her boyfriend, G.L. A week later, C.J. and her mother each found that all of the tires on their vehicles were flat. Three months later, C.J.’s house was “shot up.” Three months after that, her car was vandalized, and three months after the vandalism, someone set her car on fire. C.J. did not see G.L. commit any of the acts, but, according to C.J., after each event, G.L. would check with one of the woman’s friends “to see if they knew anything.”

Imputing Income to Your Ex-Spouse in Your Florida Alimony Case

Published on: February 10, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

In an alimony case, one of the more important issues you may face is deciding whether or not you or your spouse is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. This issue was at the center of one South Florida man’s appeal of his divorce judgment. The man successfully persuaded the 4th District Court of Appeal to send the case back to the trial court because that lower court had imputed no income to the wife despite clear evidence that she was voluntarily underemployed.

In this case, R.M. (husband) and C.M. (wife) from Broward County had sought a divorce after 30-plus years of marriage. As part of the trial court’s judgment of dissolution in the case, that court awarded alimony to the wife. In calculating that alimony amount, the trial court imputed no income to the wife. It was on this basis that the husband appealed the alimony award.

Your Ex-Spouse’s New Partner and Your Florida Alimony Obligation

Published on: February 3, 2016 | by Sandy T. Fox

One of the more frustrating turns of events for individuals ordered to pay alimony is the discovery that the ex-spouse to whom they are making support payments has moved in with a boyfriend or girlfriend. In some situations, your ex-spouse’s decision to cohabitate with another person may be valid grounds for modifying or terminating your alimony payments. Whether you succeed in obtaining a modification or termination of your obligation depends largely on the facts of your ex-spouse’s new relationship and, in some cases, which terms you put in your marital settlement agreement. As a recent Central Florida case illustrates, even if you succeed, it is important to keep in mind that there are limits to what the law can do for you.

One way to succeed is to prove that your ex is involved in a “supportive relationship,” as defined by Florida Statutes Section 61.14. That’s what happened in a recent Volusia County case. The ex-husband went to court alleging that his ex-wife, to whom he paid alimony, had entered into a supportive relationship under the statute and that he should be entitled not only to a termination of his obligation to make future alimony payments, but also to have his obligation retroactively terminated going all the way to the date that the ex-wife moved in with her partner. The ex-husband succeeded in proving the existence of a supportive relationship involving the ex-wife, and the trial court retroactively terminated her alimony as the husband had requested.

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Alimony Award for Failing to Provide for Wife’s Needs

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

A North Florida trial court’s decision to award an ex-wife only enough alimony to cover her insurance expenses was recently thrown out by the 1st District Court of Appeal as not proper under the requirements of the Florida Statutes. In this wife’s case, failing to award enough alimony to cover her shelter and medications required reversal. The ruling reminds those involved in divorce matters that the law demands consideration of all of the recipient’s necessities as established during the couple’s marriage, and it also serves a clear warning of the potential risks of proceeding without legal counsel.

The couple, J.R. (husband) and T.R. (wife) from Clay County, recently divorced after a long-term marriage. The husband had an income of more than $78,000 per year. The wife, who did not have a high-school degree, had an annual income of less than $16,500. When the trial court came to address the issue of alimony, the judge concluded that the wife’s needs consisted only of her insurance, including both auto and health. The cost for these expenses was $600 per month, so the trial court awarded the wife $600 monthly in permanent alimony.

Florida Husband’s Failure to Pay Wife Did Not Amount to Contempt of Court

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

An ex-husband who failed to make payments to his ex-wife, even though he was financially able, was nevertheless able to escape being slammed with contempt of court. The 5th District Court of Appeal overturned a trial court decision that found the man in contempt, ruling that the payments were part of the equitable distribution in the couple’s divorce and that contempt cannot be used to enforce equitable distribution payments.

When J.L. (husband) and A.L. (wife) decided to divorce, the trial court divided up several assets, including the retirement benefits of the husband, who was a state employee. The trial court awarded the wife 50% of the marital portion of the husband’s state retirement. Unfortunately for everyone, however, things did not go as planned. Before the husband could retire, he suffered an injury at work. Instead of receiving retirement benefits, the husband began collecting permanent disability benefits.

Florida Appeals Court Nixes Language Restrictions, Timesharing Supervisor Payment Obligations in Custody Order

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

A mother whose custody arrangement with her daughter unraveled after an involuntary psychological commitment in 2010 achieved a measure of success in a recent ruling from the 2d District Court of Appeal. While the appeals court upheld a trial court’s decision regarding primary residential custody of the child, the appeals court struck down mandates barring the mother from speaking her native Spanish to the child and forcing the mother to pay the entire bill for the timesharing supervisor who was required to attend all of the mother’s supervised visitations.

The case involved the daughter of D.F. (husband) and his then-wife, P.F.. The couple, who married in 2003, split up in 2006 shortly after the daughter’s birth. The marital settlement agreement included a timesharing schedule in which the girl resided with her mother four days per week, and with her father for three days. The agreement also named the mother as the primary residential custodian.

The mother was involuntarily committed in 2010 for psychological reasons. The father went to court seeking an emergency order to revoke the mother’s timesharing and to have himself named primary residential custodian. The court entered the order. About a week later, the mother was released and began fighting to overturn the emergency order. What ensued was a protracted battle regarding decision-making, timesharing, who was responsible for paying the timesharing supervisor, and other related issues. The trial court issued an order that kept the father as primary residential custodian and imposed many restrictions on the mother.