SMITH FAMILY FLORIDA CASE LAW REVIEW: Week of February 19, 2018:
Posted by Roy Smith on Feb 23rd 2018Eberhart v. Eberhart : Fla. 1st DCA, February 23, 2018:
1st DCA found that trial court's interpretation of "imprecise language" in a consent judgment was incorrect. Husband and Wife agreed that Husband would get "a one-half share of the marital portion" of the Wife's pension. The agreement then had parenthetical guidance stating "marital portion means the date of marriage to the date of this Final Judgment." The marital portion includes all retirement benefits accumulated from the date of the marriage until the final judgment was entered. If the wife stopped accruing benefits when she retired in 2004, then that is when the marital portion was set, even if the marriage lasted years longer.
Brooks v. Brooks : Fla. 1st DCA, February 23, 2018:
1st DCA quashed some medical and psychiatric records requests from third parties in case involving "child custody." While the mental health of a parent is a factor to be considered this does not waive the statutory psychotherapist-patient privilege. Mere allegations of mental or emotional instability cannot overcome this privilege. The privilege can be involuntarily waived under "extreme circumstances." Medical records must also be relevant to the present ability to parent. Further, the trial courts must conduct an in-camera inspection of the records to prevent improper overbroad disclosures.
Perez v. Perez : Fla. 5th DCA, February 23, 2018:
Alimony award was remanded for further findings as the trial court did not explain how it reached its conclusions, including its calculation of Husband's income. Further, even though son, who had been deeded marital properties during the marriage, testified that he would return the properties to his parents if they needed the properties, the court erred in distributing the non-marital properties (as they had been deeded to the son) to the parties. Even if the trial court simply considered the value of the property deeded to the son when arriving at its equitable distribution it erred because it made no finding of fraud, waste or dissipation on part of Husband.
Stufft v. Stufft : Fla. 5th DCA, February 23, 2018:
Trial court erred by entering a final judgment that indicated Husband's equitable distribution payments to Wife would be treated as support and enforceable by contempt. Trial court also erred in failing to distribute the parties' federal income tax liability.
Pitcher v. Schneider : Fla. 5th DCA, February 23, 2018:
Father's attempt to appeal a timesharing determination in an establishment of paternity case was without merit and there was no transcript. Further, the 5th DCA praised the completeness and excellence of the trial judge's judgment.
Read More...
