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

In an 83-30 vote, the Florida House has passed Representative Ritch Workman’s bill designed to end permanent alimony in the state. House Bill 549 would not only prohibit new permanent alimony obligations in favor of long-term support orders, but it could also be applied retroactively to permanent alimony awards made in the past. This means Florida citizens currently paying permanent alimony would have the opportunity to reduce or eliminate spousal support obligations. The bill will now move on to the Florida Senate.

If the bill becomes law, it would reduce the length of time a court may award alimony payments to half of the length of the marriage absent additional written justification by a court outlining the need for a longer duration. It would also make it easier for those paying alimony to stop payments upon retirement and prohibit a court from ordering the paying spouse to live on a lower net income than the payee. Additionally, the law would prohibit a court from considering the income and assets of an alimony payer’s new spouse upon remarriage.

According to Florida Alimony Reform (FAR), a group that assisted in writing the bill, the law is necessary because current Florida alimony laws are unfair to men. 95 percent of divorced individuals paying alimony in the state are men and the financial burden of permanent alimony awards often prevent them from retiring. House Bill 549 was a compromise bill. FAR originally advocated for more sweeping alimony reforms.

The Florida Bar Association has publicly criticized the alimony bill and accused FAR of spreading misinformation. According to a press release written by David Manz of the Florida Bar Association’s Family Law Section, the proposed law is “far-reaching in magnitude and would have significant adverse and unintended consequences.” Although the Florida Bar reportedly agrees alimony reform is necessary, the organization claims FAR has exaggerated the purported lack of fairness in the current system. Manz also stated the Bar Association would support fair reform to Florida’s alimony laws.

In Florida, an alimony award is intended to maintain each spouse’s standard of living after a divorce. Because an award of alimony is contingent upon the financial needs of one spouse and the other’s ability to pay, alimony is not awarded in all circumstances. The length of the marriage also factors into any alimony awarded by a Florida court.

Although a permanent alimony award may be made at the discretion of a judge after a moderate or short-term marriage is dissolved, it is normally awarded to a spouse who is no longer capable of meeting basic financial needs after a long term marriage of more than 17 years. Florida courts are required to determine no other alimony award is “fair and reasonable under the circumstances,” before permanent alimony is awarded. For marriages which lasted between 7-17 years, there must be clear and convincing evidence permanent alimony is the appropriate award.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A Broward County judge recently handed down a rather unusual bond court ruling to a Plantation man charged with domestic violence. At his initial appearance hearing, the 47-year-old defendant was ordered to buy his wife flowers and a birthday card, take her to dinner at Red Lobster, take her bowling, and attend marriage counseling.

The man was reportedly taken into custody after an argument with his wife escalated. The argument purportedly began because he failed to wish his spouse a happy birthday. According to the arrest affidavit, he pushed his wife onto a sofa, placed his hand on her neck, and threatened to punch her. Broward County Judge John “Jay” Hurley asked his wife if she was injured or afraid of her husband. After his wife responded she was not, the judge issued his order: the man was required to take his spouse on a date for her birthday.

According to Judge Hurley, he made the unique ruling because the incident was rather minor and the defendant had no prior arrest record. The judge also made clear he would not treat a more serious domestic violence case similarly. In this man’s case, his spouse did not appear to be in any danger despite the couple’s fight. Judge Hurley stated in this particular instance, his ruling was a better resolution than the alternatives of setting a bond or keeping the man in custody. Judge Hurley also ordered the couple to begin attending marriage counseling within one week.

In Florida, domestic violence can include assault, battery, stalking, aggravated assault, battery or stalking, sexual assault or battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and other criminal offenses. State law allows a victim of domestic violence to seek a restraining order against her or his alleged abuser. In order to obtain a protection order against an abuser, a victim must petition a court and provide specific facts regarding why a restraining order is merited. After that, the court will hold a hearing to determine whether a protection order is warranted.

A restraining order may also be granted where a petitioner has a reasonable fear that domestic violence will occur. If the court believes the petitioner is in immediate danger, based on the allegations in the petition, it may issue a temporary restraining order until a hearing can be held. Temporary orders generally last for 15 days, but are subject to an extension at the discretion of the court.

If a permanent protection order is granted, it will not expire. A petitioner must ask the court to modify or end a permanent restraining order. The petitioner must also demonstrate changed circumstances that warrant the modification or termination of the order. A temporary or permanent protection order requires an alleged abuser to stay away from the petitioner, the petitioner’s residence, place of employment, and other designated locations. It may also award a petitioner temporary custody of any minor children and require the abuser to give up their firearms and ammunition.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

This week, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal declined to disqualify Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Espinosa Dennis from a child custody case between two prominent area lawyers. After the two attorneys divorced in 2005, the former couple agreed to share custody of their two small children equally. Since that time, their relationship reportedly deteriorated so much so that the former wife, a law professor, asked Judge Espinosa Dennis to hold the former husband, a partner at a law firm, in contempt for allegedly violating provisions in their divorce agreement. According to the ex-wife, the ex-husband has continuously and repeatedly sent her abusive emails. The ex-wife also asked the judge to modify the former couple’s custody agreement.

Last November, the ex-husband filed a motion asking Judge Espinosa Dennis to recuse herself from the custody case after the law firm at which the ex-wife’s attorney is employed co-sponsored a fundraising event and donated $500 to Judge Espinosa Dennis’ re-election campaign. Judge Espinosa Dennis called the motion legally insufficient and denied his request. The former husband then appealed to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal seeking her removal from the case. According to the ex-husband, it would be impossible for Judge Espinosa Dennis to treat him fairly due to the donations made to her campaign. Interestingly, the ex-husband’s own law firm also reportedly donated $500 to the judge’s re-election campaign last December.

The ex-wife’s appellate attorney argued that the ex-husband is simply unhappy with Judge Espinosa Dennis’ prior rulings against him. He also claims the former husband has continued the litigation in an attempt to drain his former wife’s financial resources. Because of this, the ex-wife asked the appellate court to award her approximately $100,000 in attorney’s fees. In a judgment which offered no legal reasoning except a citation to a 1991 Supreme Court of Florida case, a panel of Third District Court judges denied the ex-husband’s petition to remove Judge Espinosa Dennis from the case. Judges Richard J. Suarez, Judges Juan Ramirez Jr., and Vance E. Salter also provisionally approved the ex-wife’s request for legal fees.

Florida is a no-fault divorce state. If you have minor children, your final judgment of divorce will include a parenting plan and a custody arrangement, also called a time-sharing plan. Such a plan will outline which parent a child will spends holidays, overnights, and all other days with each week. If parents cannot agree on a time-sharing plan, one will be ordered by the court. The modification of a time-sharing plan can be difficult as a parent who is seeking modification must demonstrate changed circumstances justify the modification. If you are seeking to establish or modify your child’s time-sharing plan, a capable Broward County family law lawyer can assist you.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

A Miami-Dade judge has refused to recuse herself in a heated Florida custody dispute between two prominent attorneys, despite her alleged ties to the law firm representing the former wife. The spouses divorced in 2005 after seven years of marriage. At the time of their divorce, the couple reportedly agreed to share equal custody of their two sons. Since then, the ex-wife has accused the ex-husband of violating provisions in the former couple’s divorce agreement by repeatedly calling her names in emails. She has asked Judge Maria Espinosa Dennis to hold him in contempt and amend the custody agreement.

According to Florida election records, the law firm at which the former wife’s attorney is employed donated $500 to Judge Espinosa Dennis’ re-election campaign on November 15th. The day before, the firm also co-sponsored a fundraiser for Espinosa Dennis at a restaurant in South Miami. The former husband filed a motion asking Judge Espinosa Dennis to recuse herself on November 1st after invitations to the re-election fundraiser were distributed. Judge Espinosa Dennis denied his request and he appealed to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal. He purportedly feels he will be unable to receive a fair hearing before the lower court judge.

The ex-wife’s law firm is also seeking an award of approximately $100,000 in costs and attorney’s fees against the ex-husband. Her appellate attorney has stated that the former husband’s recusal argument has no merit and is legally indefensible. According to the ex-wife’s lawyer, the ex-wife’s law firm took no substantive part in the re-election fundraiser and only attended the event. He also said that the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee only requires a judge to analyze an attorney’s campaign involvement when faced with a recusal request. No employee at the law firm is on Judge Espinosa Dennis’ campaign committee.

Although the former husband claims Judge Espinosa Dennis had an obligation to disclose the law firm’s fundraising efforts as a possible conflict of interest, the former wife’s attorney argues that the ex-husband is merely upset with the judge’s prior rulings against him. He also alleges that the ex-husband has continued litigation for more than two years in an attempt to drain his ex-wife’s financial resources. The former husband’s attorney stated the judge’s decision to continue to preside over the case is insensitive and fails to take into account how any reasonable individual would react given the situation.

Custody arrangements in Florida are referred to as time-sharing plans. A time-sharing plan will specify the amount of time a child will spend with each parent each week. The plan will also specify where children will spend overnights and holidays. If a child’s parents are unable to agree on a time-sharing schedule, the court will set a schedule for them. A court ordered time-sharing plan will take into account statutory factors such as the child’s preference and any instances of abuse or violence. In order to modify a time-sharing plan, Florida law requires the parent seeking modification to show substantially changed circumstances.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Last year, Okaloosa County, Florida created its first Unified Family Court in Crestview. Okaloosa County Circuit Judge Terry Ketchel was appointed to preside over the court. According to Ketchel, the court was set up to bring related domestic issues into the same courtroom before a single judge. He also stated civil cases concerning divorce, domestic violence, neglect, and juvenile delinquency make up almost half of all cases heard in the First Judicial District of Florida.

Terry Terrell, Chief Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, is committed to the Unified Family Court concept. Terrell, who was previously appointed to a Family Court Steering Committee by the Supreme Court of Florida, believes Crestview was a particularly well-suited location in which to begin the program. Although the Unified Family Court is still in its early stages, Okaloosa County officials hope to establish another location next year.

Judge Ketchel believes the new court provides judges with an opportunity to engage in better decision-making because it provides a judge with a better understanding of a family’s particular situation. He also stated prior to implementation of the new court, it was not uncommon for a single family to have multiple cases on the family law docket at any given time. The primary goal of the Unified Family Court is to protect children. According to Ketchel, “They’re not causing any of this, but they are dramatically impacted. Even the best of divorces is traumatic for children.”

Although there is no way to truly determine the success of the county’s new family court, employees at the Department of Children and Families in Northwest Florida support the concept. Additionally, Terrell believes the court has increased judicial efficiency and acts as an effective case management tool. It will be interesting to learn whether other Florida counties soon follow the new Okaloosa County family court model.

If you are faced with divorce or other stressful family law matters, you need an experienced attorney who is focused on family law to help you navigate the legal process. Whether or not you have legal counsel for marital and family law matters can make a huge difference in your future. A knowledgeable family law attorney can help.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Three days after he administered the Florida attorney’s oath to his son Carlos, 58-year-old Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Julio Jimenez succumbed to liver cancer. The former defense attorney started his career as a circuit judge in 2003. He began presiding over Miami-Dade family law matters last January.

Judge Jimenez was born in Matanzas, Cuba and immigrated to the United States with only his sister at the age of eight. When the rest of his family arrived in the United States, Jimenez’s family moved to Chicago. He attended the University of Illinois and later earned a law degree from DePaul University. Jimenez moved to the Miami Metro as a new attorney more than thirty years ago. The young defense lawyer met his wife, Lili, at the court house where she worked as an interpreter for Spanish speakers.

Jimenez is remembered as an active judge who truly enjoyed his job. 11th Circuit Chief Judge Joel Brown stated Jimenez was a well respected judge who had a reputation for both integrity and fairness. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jorge Cueto said Jimenez was a smart, decisive man. Early on in Cueto’s career, Jimenez served as a role model for the type of judge he hoped to become.

Judge Jimenez was also known for his willingness to make tough decisions in the courtroom. When presiding over criminal trials, he offered up long prison sentences for violent offenders. A former law partner said Jimenez always had the ability to differentiate between those offenders who merely made a mistake and those whose violence merited stiff punishment. Jimenez also expected parties to be practical and negotiate plea deals in those cases he felt ought to be resolved prior to trial.

Unfortunately, after only one year in the Miami-Dade Circuit’s family law division, Judge Jimenez lost his battle with liver cancer. He is survived by his wife and three children.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Last month, a Hillsborough County Circuit judge ordered the arrest of a successful Tampa area businessman, after he was found guilty of five counts of criminal contempt of court for failure to pay his child support and alimony obligations. The man reportedly failed to attend the contempt hearing where Judge Caroline Tesche sentenced him to almost six months in jail for repeatedly refusing to pay more than $6 million in alimony and child support.

The man’s ex-wife initiated divorce proceedings in 2009 and the former couple reached a final settlement agreement in July 2011. Although the couple has a 12-year-old son together, she stated her former husband has not supported them for several years. According to her attorney, the man now owes his ex-wife $10 million.

The man in this case is reportedly a decorated Vietnam veteran, a former president of a company, and previously ran a building materials business which allegedly reported profits of more than $4 million per month at its height. At one point, he reportedly owned a mansion and regularly drove several high end sports cars. Now, the man claims he is financially insolvent. In fact, he allegedly filed for bankruptcy just three days prior to the contempt hearing. Still, Judge Tesche believes the father has the ability to pay.

This man reportedly owns stock in several large companies as well as other assets. His attorney has argued that the man’s hands are tied as the former couple’s settlement agreement prohibits him from selling his stock in order to generate cash. He also claims the man is unable to liquidate any of his assets and lives off of loans and a small monthly Department of Veterans Affairs disability check.

According to the former wife, her ex-husband has the money and is merely hiding millions of dollars in assets from her. In November 2010, he spent more than two weeks in jail for refusing to produce documents during the couple’s divorce proceedings. When he filed for bankruptcy, the man reportedly estimated his assets as being in the range of $100 to $500 million and his liabilities at no more than $50 million. To further complicate the case, the Internal Revenue Service is also allegedly performing a criminal investigation into his affairs. His attorney has stated he is not aware of the man’s current location.

Each year many Florida residents find themselves in the midst of a less than amicable divorce. Understandably, the host of emotions associated with the end of a marriage can be overwhelming. The financial damage can oftentimes make a bad situation even worse. If you are contemplating divorce, you need an experienced family law attorney to help you protect your financial interests.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal recently ruled in a case of first impression involving a same sex partnership child custody dispute. In a rather unique case, two women involved in a same sex partnership decided to have a child after engaging in a committed relationship for 11 years. When one woman in the partnership learned she was infertile, the other donated an egg which was fertilized using an anonymous donor. The infertile partner then carried the child to term and a baby girl was born in January 2004. The result was that although one partner gave birth to the child, the other is the child’s biological mother.

Only the woman who gave birth to the child was listed on her birth certificate, but the child’s last name is a hyphenated version of each woman’s last name. Although the couple parted when the child was 2 years old, she continued to treat each woman as a parent and divided her time between them. When the child was 3.5 years old, the birth mother reportedly took the child and left the country without notice. A short time after the egg donor learned of their whereabouts, the two returned to Florida.

The child’s biological mother filed a lawsuit in Brevard County seeking visitation. A circuit judge reluctantly ruled in favor of the child’s birth mother because a woman who gives birth to a child is the child’s mother according to Florida law. The biological mother appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court stated both the United States and Florida constitutions provide parental rights to both women and preempt Florida law on the matter. The Fifth District overturned the Brevard County judge’s decision and remanded the case to determine visitation, custody, and child support issues based on the best interests of the child.

The appellate court also asked the Florida Supreme Court to consider whether application of the Florida statute regarding parentage to the facts of the case at hand rendered the statute itself unconstitutional.

In the state of Florida, a custody arrangement is generally referred to as a time-sharing schedule. An overall parenting plan which includes a time-sharing schedule is usually established when parents divorce but can be established any time parenting partners choose to end their relationship. A time sharing plan outlines the amount of time a child will spend with each parent every week. This includes both holidays and overnights. If a child’s parents cannot agree on a time-sharing plan, a court will set a schedule which takes into account a variety of statutory factors and the child’s preference. Florida law requires a parent who seeks to modify a time-sharing schedule to show the existence of substantially changed circumstances which justify the change.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Members of the baby-boom generation are increasingly choosing to divorce as they near retirement age. Although the overall U.S. divorce rate declined in recent years, divorce rates among adults aged 50 to 64 steadily increased. According to Susan L. Brown, co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green University, one in four divorces in this nation currently involve someone over the age of 50. In 1990, less than ten percent of divorces involved a spouse over age 50. That’s a dramatic increase from only twenty years ago.

As the boomer generation ages and reaches retirement, the related life transitions can be tough. Some couples who spent decades together find they must reconnect with one another on a new level. Retiring spouses often have a difficult time adjusting to life without a daily work routine. Spouses who previously stayed at home alone may also have a tough time as their routine is suddenly interrupted by the presence of another person in the home all day. Many marriages will survive the transition, but researchers say weak unions may shatter under the stress.

Research has shown the baby-boom generation has frequently engaged in a pattern of marriage at a young age, divorce, and subsequent remarriage. According to Brown, marriages in which at least one spouse has been married before are twice as likely to result in divorce later in life than those in which both spouses are in their first marriage. A divorce near retirement age can cause a huge financial strain on both parties as retirement accounts and other assets are split. Additional questions arise as many late life divorcees have no plans to remarry. According to Brown, this can result in societal challenges if baby boomers become ill or can no longer care for themselves because no spouse is present to provide care as with past generations. Choosing to remarry can also pose added legal obstacles if estate planning and inheritance matters are not planned well in advance.
Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Florida lawmakers are currently considering a bill which would end permanent alimony awards following divorce. If passed by the Florida Legislature, House Bill 549 would base an award of alimony on the length of the divorcing parties’ marriage. For example, a marriage which lasted for 12 years would be eligible for a maximum alimony award of 12 years. The bill would also cap awards based on the payer’s income and allow payments to cease upon the payer’s retirement.

Earlier this month, the state legislature heard testimony in favor of House Bill 549 from members of the Florida Alimony Reform Group. A member of the group, Hector Torres, has also urged legislators to allow previous awards of permanent alimony to be revisited by courts. According to Torres, the state’s laws are behind the times and it is unfair he must pay alimony until his death after a marriage which lasted only 14 years.

Although the bulk of divorces across the nation involve some sort of alimony award, the money is generally provided to assist a spouse as he or she works to become self-supporting. Today, several states are changing their alimony laws in response to the fact that more spouses work outside of the home. This fall, Massachusetts placed new limits on the length of time alimony may be awarded by courts and ended alimony payments when the payer reaches retirement or the payee begins residing with another partner. Florida recently amended state alimony laws to provide awards solely after marriages of long term duration. Permanent awards now also require a court determination stating no other alimony option is fair or reasonable given the parties’ situation. New Jersey is currently considering legislation to limit alimony awards as well.

In Florida, two requirements must exist before a court will award alimony. They include a need on the part of the payee and an ability to pay on the part of the alimony payor. The first requirement takes into account the distribution of marital assets combined with the parties’ standard of living prior to the end of the marriage. If the potential payee can maintain the same standard of living after all assets are distributed, a court likely will not award alimony.
Continue reading ›