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

Generally, when a child is born to a married couple, both parents have the right to care and custody of the child. Pursuant to Florida law, however, when a child is born out of wedlock, the mother is deemed the child’s natural guardian and has the right to sole custody and care of the child absent a court order stating otherwise. Notably, as discussed in a recent Florida case, the purported father of a child born outside of a marriage does not have parental rights even if they file an acknowledgment of paternity that goes unchallenged. If you need assistance handling a paternity dispute, you should consult a Miami paternity attorney to assess your options for protecting your interests.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the parties lived together following the child’s birth in 2014. The father signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity at the child’s birth in accordance with Florida law; the mother did not contest the acknowledgment. However, there were no further orders regarding the father’s parental rights. In 2022, after the parents separated, the mother moved with the child to her parents’ home, which was located about 20 miles away, and enrolled the child in school there.

It is reported that the father filed an emergency motion to compel the mother to enroll the child in a school in the city where the parties previously resided. The court granted the motion, and the mother appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Discovery is a crucial part of the divorce process, as it allows the parties and court to evaluate community debts and assets. As such, if the court limits or denies a party’s discovery requests, it may impair their right to assert certain claims or arguments. Recently, a Florida court discussed the right to obtain discovery of a party’s assets in a matter in which the court reversed the trial court’s denial of a discovery request related to property awarded to a party in the judgment of dissolution. If you are concerned about how divorce may impact you financially, it would benefit you to meet with a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Background

It is reported that the husband and wife divorced in 2008. Pursuant to the final judgment of dissolution, the husband was ordered to pay the wife permanent alimony of $13,000 per month. In 2019, the wife filed a motion for content and enforcement due to the fact that the husband failed to make a required alimony payment.

Allegedly, the husband filed a motion to modify the alimony obligation in response. The wife then sought discovery regarding the husband’s finances, including information about the husband’s sale of an asset that was awarded to him in their divorce settlement. The husband objected to the request, and the court found in favor of the husband, limiting the wife’s discovery with regard to the sale of the asset. The wife filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the trial court deviated from the essential requirements of the law in limiting her right to discovery. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

It is within the authority of the Florida courts not only to award alimony in divorce actions but also to modify existing alimony orders. In either scenario, however, the court must set forth certain factual findings; otherwise, any order issued may be subject to reversal. This was illustrated in a recent Florida action in which the wife successfully appealed an alimony modification due to the court’s failure to set forth required statutory findings. If you have questions about alimony, it is smart to talk to an attorney promptly.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the parties divorced. They entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement in 2007; at that time, the husband was 51 years old. The agreement stated, in part, that the husband would pay alimony to the wife and that the monthly payments, which were subject to an annual adjustment in accordance with the Consumer Price Index, were otherwise not modifiable until the husband turned 60. Between the ages of 60 and 65, the husband could seek a modification for a material, substantial, unanticipated, and permanent change in financial circumstances. The husband sought a modification when he was 62. The court granted the husband’s request and reduced his monthly alimony obligation by over half. The wife appealed.

Required Statutory Findings in Florida Alimony Actions

On appeal, the wife argued that the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for modifying alimony, the trial court improperly imputed income to her, there was insufficient evidence to show she experienced a substantial and material change in financial circumstances, and the modification was inequitable.   Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Alimony
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

It is not uncommon for the Florida courts to order one party to pay the other alimony in divorce actions. Unfortunately, parties do not always abide by the court’s orders, and legal action must be taken by the courts to compel compliance. For example, the courts may impose equitable liens against the obligor’s account. As shown in a recent Florida ruling issued in a divorce action, though, the courts must abide by certain procedural rules when imposing such liens; otherwise, they may be vacated. If you intend to end your marriage and want to learn more about how divorce may impact you financially, it is prudent to consult an attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the parties entered into an Amended Mediated Settlement Agreement in March 2014. Among other things, it stated that the husband agreed to pay permanent alimony to the Wife equal to one-third of his gross income from employment or any other source of earned income. The husband failed to pay the full amount of alimony due, and the wife filed a motion for contempt and enforcement. Following a hearing, the court imposed an equitable lien on the husband’s retirement accounts to secure the payment of alimony arrearages. The husband appealed.

Procedure for Imposing an Equitable Lien in Family Law Matters

On appeal, the husband argued that the trial court imposed the equitable lien without notice or discussion and erred by issuing the lien without finding the special circumstances required for imposing an equitable lien. The court agreed with the husband, noting that Florida case law requires the trial court to set forth specific findings of special circumstances before imposing an equitable lien to protect payment of alimony. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The Florida courts regard allegations of domestic violence seriously and will impose any legal measures necessary to keep victims of domestic violence safe. Merely because a person accuses someone of engaging in acts of domestic violence does not mean that the courts will issue injunctions for protection against their alleged attacker, however. Instead, as illustrated in a recent ruling issued by a Florida court, the acts in question must, at a minimum, inspire an objectively reasonable fear of imminent harm. If you are the victim of domestic violence or have been accused of domestic violence by a former romantic partner, it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney about your rights.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the husband and wife lived in Missouri; they divorced in October 2021, and the wife moved to Florida, where she filed for an injunction for protection against domestic violence against the husband. In her petition, she claimed that he had committed or threatened to commit domestic violence against her.

It is reported that the wife asserted that her daughter overheard the husband saying he had purchased a gun silencer in October 2020, and she feared that he would kill her. The wife also testified that in March 2021, the husband told her that he did not need a silencer to kill her. The wife admitted, however,  that she had never seen the husband in Florida and that he had never attempted to contact her directly. The trial court granted the injunction, and the husband appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Co-parents frequently disagree as to how parental rights and obligations should be divided. Thus, the courts will typically issue orders delineating each parent’s duties. If a party fails to uphold the terms of a child custody or support order, they may be found in contempt. As discussed in a recent Florida child support case, however, the courts generally will not hold a party in contempt unless they find they willfully disregarded a court order. If you are involved in a dispute over child support, it is smart to talk to a Miami child support lawyer about your options.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that in 2017, a magistrate entered a report and recommendations to establish paternity and parental responsibility for a minor child, including a parenting plan and child support obligations. Among other things, the plan required the father to pay 70% of the child’s educational expenses and 50% of the cost of the child’s extracurricular activities. In 2018, the mother filed a motion for contempt and enforcement, alleging that the father failed to pay extracurricular expenses and private school tuition. The parties returned to court in 2019, and the magistrate determined that the father was not obligated to pay for private school tuition as an “educational” expense and that the father was not in contempt for extracurricular activity expenses. The mother dismissed her objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendations.

Allegedly, in 2020, the mother filed an amended motion for contempt, alleging that the father failed to pay child support and various expenses owed under the original final judgment and a subsequent stipulated order. Specifically, the mother alleged that the father was in contempt for failing to pay 70% of the tutoring expenses. The trial court conducted a hearing where it was established that the tutoring was provided by a privately-owned tutoring company that offered after-school educational programs. The court found the father in contempt for failing to pay his share of tutoring expenses, which the court concluded were educational expenses. The court also ordered the father to pay for the mother’s attorney’s fees and costs. The father appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Income is one of the numerous factors the Florida courts consider when determining obligations and rights with regard to child support. Unfortunately, parties will sometimes attempt to inappropriately alter support obligations by refusing to obtain gainful employment. In such instances, pursuant to the Florida child support guidelines, the courts can impute income to them. This was demonstrated in a recent Florida child support case in which the court found that the trial court erred in failing to consider the wife’s earning potential based on her recent employment. If you have questions about child support, it is prudent to meet with a Miami child support lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the parties married in Michigan and had two minor children. They each filed petitions for dissolution in 2019; the husband in Michigan and the wife in Florida. They were divorced in Florida, and the court merged and incorporated their confidential settlement agreement into the final judgment of the divorce. While the agreement contained provisions regarding child support, the court crossed out those sections, and they were not part of the final judgment.

Reportedly, the parties then determined that Florida was the proper jurisdiction for child support and child custody issues between the parties. The wife then filed a motion to establish temporary child support. The husband moved to dismiss the motion in light of the settlement agreement. The court issued an order directing the husband to pay almost $3,000 per month in support. It also imputed income to the wife at the level of minimum wage. The husband appealed on numerous grounds. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many Florida divorces, the parties will draft a marital settlement agreement that sets forth the terms of the dissolution of their marriage. Such agreements are contracts and, like any other contract, are enforceable by the courts. The courts will typically look at the terms of the agreement to determine each party’s rights and obligations; when the terms of a marital settlement agreement are ambiguous, though, the court may need to consider outside evidence, as discussed in a recent Florida ruling issued in a divorce action. If you or your spouse intend to seek a divorce, it is wise to speak to a Miami divorce lawyer about what measures you can take to protect your rights.

Factual Background of the Case

It is reported that the parties were married and had two minor children during their marriage. They subsequently divorced, and the trial court entered a final dissolution judgment in 2001. The court orally entered the parties’ marital settlement agreement into the record and incorporated it as part of the final judgment. The judgment contained a provision related to child support that stated each party would pay half of each child’s college expenses.

Allegedly, the wife moved for enforcement of the judgment, arguing that the husband refused to pay half of the children’s college expenses. The husband sought discovery, but the wife objected to all of his requests. The husband filed a response in opposition to the wife’s motion, arguing that the phrase “college expenses” was latently ambiguous and, therefore, the court should consider parol evidence to determine the intent of the agreement. The trial court did not permit such evidence and entered a judgment against the husband. The husband appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In a Florida child custody case, the court’s driving concern is what is in the best interest of the child that is the subject of the suit. The court will look at numerous factors to determine what custody arrangement will best benefit the child’s welfare and well-being. The courts generally are not permitted to analyze factors on a prospective basis, but there are some exceptions, as discussed by a recent Florida opinion issued in a custody matter in which the father appealed the trial court ruling. If you need assistance protecting your parental rights, it is advisable to confer with a Miami child custody lawyer regarding your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the mother and the father were parties to a custody action to determine parental rights with regard to their minor child. The trial court issued a judgment determining timesharing and parental rights. The judgment also permitted the mother to relocate to another city in Florida with the minor child when the child began attending school and allowed for a modification of time-sharing rights due to the relocation.

Allegedly, the father appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in issuing a judgment that allowed for an automatic modification of timesharing rights in the future, as it relied on a prospective-based analysis, which Florida law prohibits. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The Florida courts protect people in family law matters from suffering adverse consequences due to one party’s “unclean hands.” In other words, the courts will often deny a party relief if they caused the issue in question in bad faith. The courts cannot sua sponte apply the unclean hands doctrine, however, as explained in a recent Florida child support case in which the father sought a modification. Instead, the issue must be brought before the court by a party. If you are subject to a child support obligation and you or a co-parent intend to ask the court to alter the support order, it is in your best interest to talk to a Miami child support attorney about your rights.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the mother filed a paternity action, which ultimately determined the parentage of the father. The court then entered a child support order, in which it imposed a support obligation on the father. The father later petitioned the court to modify the support obligation. The court denied the father’s petition, mostly due to a finding of unclean hands. The father appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition.

The Unclean Hands Doctrine in Florida Family Law Cases

On appeal, the court found in favor of the father and reversed the trial court ruling. The court noted that the trial court adopted the report and recommendation of a magistrate, advising the court to deny the father’s petition due to a finding of unclean hands. The court explained, however, that the record revealed that the matter of unclean hands was not properly before the magistrate. Continue reading ›