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

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.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

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.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Cases in which one person seeks an injunction for protection from domestic violence are very serious matters for the alleged victim. The consequences of a wrongfully entered injunction can also be substantial for the person standing accused. Since the legal impact of a domestic violence injunction is so significant, Florida law allows an accused person to contest the injunction through the court system, even if the injunction’s expiration date has passed. Based on this rule, a Central Florida man was given a new opportunity by the 5th District Court of Appeal to pursue getting his injunction thrown out, even though it had expired.

The case, which began in Orange County, involved D.J (husband). and S.J. (wife). The wife went to court seeking an injunction for protection from domestic violence against David. When an alleged victim of domestic violence goes to court seeking an injunction for protection, the court always considers the entry of two types of injunctions:  temporary and final. As soon as the alleged victim files a petition for an injunction, the trial judge reviews that petition and decides whether or not a temporary injunction is warranted, and, if an immediate and present threat of violence exists, the temporary injunction is entered. These injunctions last, at most, 15 days. Final injunctions are ones issued by the judge after the conclusion of a full hearing. Some final injunctions have expiration dates set by the court, while others are indefinite in their duration.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A Central Florida wife will receive a second chance to make her case for an award of alimony, thanks to a recent decision issued by the 5th District Court of Appeal. The appeals court threw out an Osceola County trial court ruling that had given the wife zero alimony. One of the key errors that led to this reversal was the trial court’s conclusion that the couple’s marriage was one of “moderate” duration, despite the fact that the spouses had been married for more than 17 years when the husband filed for divorce.

In this case, Mr. J.Q. (husband) filed for divorce from his wife, Ms. J.Q. (wife), shortly after the couple’s 17th wedding anniversary. The couple’s divorce trial, though, did not take place until six years later. When the trial court issued its ruling, the judge stated that, taking into consideration each spouse’s relative income along with the fact that the couple’s was a marriage of moderate duration, the wife was not entitled to receive alimony.

Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

A Miami-Dade mother may be in the position of going from receiving child support to paying support. The mother’s attempt to challenge a court order creating this modification failed as the 3d District Court of Appeal ruled that the procedural basis she used for challenging the modification was incorrect, and, as a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the mother’s request.

When J.T. (father) and E.T. (mother) divorced in 2002, they reached a mediated settlement agreement as part of that case. The agreement stated that the husband would pay $444 per month in support for the couple’s one child. A decade later, the father went back to court to modify child support. He was approaching retirement, and his retirement would lead to a substantial reduction in his income. A hearing officer looked at both parents’ evidence and decided that, based upon the new income figures, the mother now owed the father a child support obligation in the amount of $384 per month. The trial judge approved the officer’s findings on March 24, 2013.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A recent case originating in Jacksonville led the 1st District Court of Appeal to throw out part of a trial court’s decision to modify a parenting plan and calculate child support. The evidence in the case did not show that a substantial change in circumstances had taken place to warrant a plan modification, and there was also insufficient evidence to support the manner in which the trial court calculated each parent’s income in arriving at the father’s support obligation amount.

The case centered around the daughter of T.B. (father) and V.B. (mother), a couple who divorced in 2005. In 2011, the father sought to amend the parenting plan. He also filed a motion asking the court to lower his child support obligation.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A man from Sweden found himself facing a child support case in South Florida, but he ultimately was able to persuade the 4th District Court of Appeal that the Florida courts could not hear the case because Florida lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Simply taking action in the case for the purpose of seeking the matter’s dismissal is not enough to trigger personal jurisdiction. Even when you are trying to persuade the courts that you do not have the required minimum contact with Florida, this does not handcuff you into refraining from taking action in the case, as long as that action is strictly defensive in nature.

The case was a child support action in which the mother, C.L., asked a Broward County court to impose a support obligation on the father, C.G. The court papers were served on the father in Sweden, where he resided. The mother argued that, in accordance with the Hague Convention’s rules regarding overseas service, the court could extend its jurisdiction over the father. The father submitted a limited response, filed (and quickly withdrew) two discovery requests, and also agreed to extend a discovery deadline.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A husband from the Gainesville area succeeded in appealing a divorce judgment entered by a trial court in Hillsborough County. The 2d District Court of Appeal ruled that the only criterion for determining venue that applied to the couple’s case was the residence of the husband. Since he undisputedly lived in Alachua County, that meant that Alachua County, not Hillsborough County, was the proper venue for the case.

In early 2013, M.V. (wife) desired to end her marriage to J.V. (husband). She filed for divorce in Tampa. The husband lived near Gainesville. He asked the trial court in Tampa to transfer the case to Gainesville, but the court refused and entered an order dissolving the marriage. The husband appealed and won, which nullified the divorce judgment that the court in Tampa had entered. The 2d DCA threw out the divorce on the basis that the trial court in Hillsborough County should have granted the husband’s request to move the case to Alachua County.

Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

In most cases, the primary sources of financial support that exist for the benefit of children are the incomes of those children’s parents. In some cases, though, there may be additional sources of income, such as state financial assistance programs. In cases when parents receive assistance from the state, that assistance cannot be used as an offset against a parent’s child support obligation. The 5th District Court of Appeal recently threw out a Seminole County court’s order wiping out the $160 per month obligation the husband would have owed under the child support guidelines. Allowing the husband not to pay child support essentially deprived the children of the full benefits that they should have received from both their parents and the state.

The case tracked the family of R.T. (wife) and K.T. (husband), a Central Florida couple who adopted two minor children with special needs during their marriage. In accordance with Florida law, those adoptions entitled the couple to receive a total of $590 per month as part of the state’s Adoption Assistance Program.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

One of the most frustrating things for a parent can be when the other parent does not comply with the parameters for timesharing established by the court. When that happens, the parent who has lost time with the child has certain legal options. It is important to understand what the law can and cannot do for you in these situations, and what you must establish to achieve a favorable outcome. One recent example of this was a case from Volusia County in which the 5th District Court of Appeal threw out a trial court order that modified timesharing in the father’s favor after the mother repeatedly failed to meet her obligations under the original timesharing order.

Originally, T.K. (father) and K.C. (mother) mutually worked out a timesharing arrangement regarding their child as part of a paternity action. However, 10 months later, T.K., a member of the military stationed in southern California, was back in court asking that K.C. be held in contempt. The mother, on three different occasions, improperly blocked the father from exercising his timesharing, according to T.K. The trial court held a short evidentiary hearing and concluded that the mother was in contempt for multiple violations of the parenting plan. The trial court awarded the father his attorney’s fees and court costs, and it also altered the parenting plan. Under the modified plan, each parent had the child 50% of the time, rotating in three-month intervals.
Continue reading ›