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

Florida family law courts handling cases involving minor children aim to rule in the children’s best interest. Unfortunately, in some instances, doing so requires the courts to declare a child dependent due to the parent’s inability to provide them with proper care. The Department of Children and Families must produce proof sufficient to demonstrate dependency by a preponderance of the evidence, however, and if it fails to do so, a child should not be deemed dependent. In a recent Florida ruling, a court addressed what constitutes sufficient evidence of dependency. If you need help protecting your parental rights, it is advisable to confer with a Miami child custody lawyer promptly.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) initiated dependency proceedings after the child was born drug-positive and exhibited severe withdrawal symptoms. The child’s mother consented to the dependency adjudication, and the trial court declared the child dependent as to the father after a bench trial. The trial court’s decision was based on two findings: first, that the father had failed to protect the child from the mother’s substance abuse during pregnancy, and second, that the father’s own drug use presented a significant risk of immediate harm or neglect to the child. The father contested these findings, leading to the appeal.

Evidence Supporting a Dependency Adjudication

 On appeal, the court focused on the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the dependency adjudication. The court emphasized that a final dependency ruling is a mixed question of law and fact, which will be upheld on review if the correct law was applied and if the ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence. Further, the court noted that DCF bore the burden of proving dependency by a preponderance of the evidence, specifically showing that the child had been abused, abandoned, or neglected or was at substantial risk of imminent harm. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many Florida divorce actions, one party will seek alimony from the other. In determining whether to grant alimony requests, among other things, the courts will evaluate both parties’ income. Additionally, if one party is not employed, the courts may impute income to them. Regardless of whether a court assessment relies on an actual or imputed income, however, it must consider the net, rather than gross, amount, as discussed in a recent Florida case. If you have questions about how you can protect your financial health while dissolving your marriage, it is smart to meet with a Miami divorce lawyer at your earliest convenience.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the husband and the wife were married for 14 years before the wife initiated a divorce action. During the divorce proceedings, both parties presented evidence and testimony, including input from their accountants and a vocational expert who assessed the wife’s employability. The trial court determined that the husband had a monthly net income of $21,000 and the ability to pay alimony, while the wife’s monthly financial needs amounted to $10,319. The court imputed an annual gross income of $60,000 to the wife, noting her lack of effort to seek employment, along with an additional $2,756 in monthly investment income.

It is reported that based on these calculations, the trial court awarded the wife durational alimony of $2,600 per month for seven years. Additionally, the wife requested attorney’s fees, arguing financial need and the husband’s ability to pay. However, the trial court denied this request, citing the wife’s engagement in litigation that was primarily intended to harass, involving non-meritorious and baseless claims. The wife appealed the trial court’s decision. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

When determining parental rights in Florida custody cases, the court’s sole focus is what is in the child’s best interest. The Florida courts recognize, though, that circumstances can change, and if they do, it may also alter what is considered to be in a child’s best interest. In a recent Florida custody action, the court discussed evidence that warrants a modification of a parenting plan, ultimately determining that such a change was necessary. If you need assistance protecting your rights in a custody action, it is prudent to speak with a Miami child custody lawyer.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the husband and wife were married and had children during their marriage.  The marriage between the parties was dissolved in 2014, and the final judgment granted primary timesharing to the wife, with the stipulation that the husband’s visitation be supervised because of his abuse of alcohol and unpredictable behavior. The judgment allowed the wife to request breathalyzer tests during the husband’s parenting time and designated five acceptable individuals to supervise the visitation.

Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Pursuant to Florida law, with few exceptions, any assets obtained during a marriage are considered marital property, while property obtained prior to the marriage remains separate. Applying this general rule can become complicated in divorce actions in which the parties mingle separate and marital assets. As discussed in a recent Florida divorce action, when marital assets are used to pay for a non-marital asset, any appreciation in the value of the property is a marital asset as well. If you have questions with regard to your rights in a dissolution proceeding, it would benefit you to consult a Miami divorce lawyer at your earliest convenience.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the parties were married in 2005. In 2015, the wife filed for dissolution of the marriage. The husband responded with a counterpetition. The trial court issued a final judgment of dissolution, which was subsequently appealed. In the initial appeal, the court determined that the husband’s Miami property was a non-marital asset and remanded the case to determine if there was any appreciation in its value during the marriage.

Reportedly, upon remand, the trial court found that the Miami property had depreciated during the marriage and concluded that the wife was not entitled to any share of the appreciation. The wife filed a motion for rehearing, which the court denied pursuant to an order agreed upon by the parties. The wife then appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In many marriages, one party earns the bulk of the income while the other takes care of the home. If a couple with such an arrangement decides to divorce, the lesser-earning party may be eligible for alimony. Further, if the court errs in determining the amount of alimony owed, they may be able to seek an adjustment, as discussed in a recent Florida case. If you want to learn more about how a divorce may impact your rights, it is prudent to speak with a Miami divorce lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the parties were married in 1986 and had three children who had all reached the age of majority prior to the end of the marriage. The wife filed for divorce in 2015, and the husband filed a counter-petition. During their marriage, the husband was the sole income earner, while the wife was a homemaker.

Reportedly, after a trial in 2019, the court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage. The appellate court reversed this judgment in 2020, however, because of an error committed by the trial court when it rejected the wife’s request to reopen the case. On remand, additional trial proceedings were held, and a new final judgment was entered in November 2022. The wife then appealed the final judgment. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

In Florida divorce proceedings, it is not uncommon for parties to enter into a marital settlement agreement that defines their post-dissolution rights and obligations. Such agreements are contracts and are enforceable as such, which means if one party fails to abide by the terms of the agreement, the other party can seek a contempt ruling from the court. Parties can only be held in contempt if the contract provisions clearly allow for such a finding, though, as discussed in a recent Florida case. If you want to pursue a divorce, it is important to understand the implications of your decision, and it is advisable to talk to a Miami divorce lawyer about your options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the husband and wife divorced; as part of their dissolution proceeding, they entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA required the wife to execute a quitclaim deed (Deed 1) conveying her interest in the marital residence to the husband, to be held by her counsel until certain conditions were met. The MSA also stipulated a lump sum alimony payment from the husband to the wife, with a default leading to the release of a second quitclaim deed (Deed 2) conveying the husband’s interest in the marital residence to the former wife.

Allegedly, the wife moved to have the husband and his attorney held in contempt for not delivering Deed 1, alleging that the attorney promised to have the former husband sign both deeds and deliver Deed 1 but failed to do so. At the contempt hearing, it was acknowledged that the wife’s counsel eventually received Deed 1, but the wife sought attorney’s fees and costs for the delay. The trial court found both the husband and his attorney in contempt and ordered them to share the former wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. The attorney appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

People who decide to end their marriage have the right to determine their rights and obligations and to memorialize them in a marital settlement agreement. Any agreement entered into with regard to the division of property and debts, custody, and other family law issues must be entered into knowingly and willingly, however. As such, if a party alleges that they signed a marital agreement under duress, the court may set the agreement aside. A party making such assertions must comply with any procedural rules and file their objections in a timely manner, though, as explained in a recent Florida opinion. If you are considering seeking a divorce, it is important to understand your options, and you should confer with a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Case Background

It is reported that after twenty-eight years of marriage, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA), where the wife agreed to pay a substantial share of her income to the husband. The husband then filed for a simplified dissolution of marriage, resulting in a final judgment that ratified the MSA. Over a decade later, the wife ceased payments as outlined in the MSA, prompting the husband to seek enforcement of the judgment, along with an order of contempt and attorney fees.

Allegedly, in response, the wife sought to set aside the MSA and judgment, claiming lack of consideration, duress, unconscionability, and fraud. She invoked the analysis from a Florida prejudgment challenge case and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. The trial court, following an evidentiary hearing, found that the wife had signed the MSA under duress and fear induced by the husband, relying exclusively on the case cited by the wife without addressing the timeliness of the wife’s claims. The husband appealed. Continue reading ›

by
Posted in: Divorce
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Florida courts handling child custody disputes are driven by what is in the best interest of the child. Absent an emergency situation, though, parents in child custody cases have the right to due process, which means, among other things, they should be provided notice of any hearings impacting their rights. If they are denied such notice, any judgment entered against them may be reversed, as discussed in a recent Florida opinion issued in a custody case. If you have questions about what measures you can take to protect your rights regarding time-sharing and parental responsibility, it is wise to speak with a Miami child custody attorney.

Factual History and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the wife and the husband were divorced and shared custody of their minor child pursuant to a parenting plan. The husband subsequently filed a supplemental petition to modify parental responsibility and other aspects of the parenting plan. The trial court then entered a judicial default against the former wife for failing to respond to the husband’s petition.

Allegedly, the wife, who was representing herself pro se at the time, did not designate an email address for service, and service was not effectuated following the required procedures. Despite this, she received notice of the proceedings through the email address used by the court and the former husband. The court entered a default judgment against her, modifying her parental responsibility and time-sharing rights. The wife appealed, arguing that she was denied proper notice before the entry of default against her. Additionally, she contested the husband rather than the court, setting the trial date. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

In any child custody dispute, the Florida courts’ main priority is what is in the best interest of the child that is the subject of the action. Therefore, in some cases, they will issue emergency ex parte orders if they deem it necessary to protect the child. Such orders are only appropriate in certain situations, though, as discussed in a recent Florida opinion. If you need help protecting your custody rights, it is in your best interest to talk to a Miami child custody attorney at your earliest convenience.

History of the Case

It is reported that the mother and father, who were divorced, had a minor child for which they shared time-sharing and parental responsibilities. The father filed a motion for contempt against the mother, alleging she was not ensuring the child’s attendance at school during her designated time-sharing. During a hearing on this motion, the father disclosed that the mother had taken the child to Orlando without providing details about their whereabouts or the individuals involved. The judge, although acknowledging these issues, suggested the father file an emergency ex parte motion to suspend the mother’s time-sharing instead of addressing them immediately.

Allegedly, thirteen days later, the father filed the emergency motion, which led to an ex parte order restricting the mother’s overnight time-sharing and prohibiting her from leaving the county with the child. At a subsequent return hearing scheduled on a non-evidentiary motion calendar, the father sought to extend these restrictions to investigate further, while the mother argued the ex parte order was invalid from the start due to procedural errors and lack of due process. The court, initially planning a non-evidentiary review, abruptly shifted to offer an evidentiary hearing on the spot, which the mother objected to on grounds of inadequate notice and due process violations. Eventually, the court modified the ex parte order to allow limited time-sharing and scheduled a return hearing months later. The mother appealed. Continue reading ›

Published on: | by

Many divorcing couples in Florida develop marital settlement agreements to determine their rights and obligations. While the courts will generally enforce the agreement as to the ex-spouses, it is unlikely that a third party has any right to pursue claims under the agreement. This was illustrated in a recent Florida divorce action in which the court ruled that a man was not obligated to pay a debt owed to his ex-mother-in-law pursuant to the terms of his marital settlement agreement. If you have questions about how a divorce could impact your finances, it is smart to speak to a Miami divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that a woman sued her former son-in-law for breach of contract, claiming she was an intended third-party beneficiary of a marital settlement agreement (MSA) between him and her daughter. The woman and her mother had loaned money to the defendant during his marriage. Following the divorce, the MSA was created to settle the couple’s assets and liabilities. The agreement listed debts, including the loans from the plaintiff and her mother that the defendant was supposed to pay.

It is reported that approximately twenty-one months later, the plaintiff sued the defendant for not paying the amounts specified. The defendant sought summary judgment, asserting that the MSA did not intend to benefit the plaintiff or her mother. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, determining that the MSA’s purpose was to divide the couple’s assets and liabilities without expressing a clear intent to benefit the plaintiff or her mother. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading ›