Smith Family Law Firm Blog

Smith Family Law Update: Week of October 16, 2017

Hodge v. Hodge: Florida 5^th DCA, October 20, 2017:

On a second appeal, the 5th DCA found that the trial court again misapplied the Kaaa factors when determining the marital value of a premarital property.  As such, Wife's share in the property would increase and the investment income from said asset would also necessarily increase requiring a recalculation of alimony for wife.

Lovejoy v. Poole: Florida 5^th DCA, October 20, 2017:

Trial court's reliance on Pyne v. Black to dismiss a motion to enforce child support was error.  Trial court's denial of standing based on Pyne ignored that the only standing issue in Pyne dealt with post-majority child support.  Further, the trial court, unlike in Pyne, did not allow an evidentiary hearing before dismissing the motion.

Smith v. Smith: Florida 4^th DCA, October 18, 2017:

Remand from the Florida Supreme Court which noted that although the marriage was invalid as it stood the parties are not foreclosed from seeking court approval in further proceedings.

Fuller v. Sandler: Florida 3^rd DCA, October 18, 2017:

"Stay away" orders are not appealable as they are nonfinal orders pending an evidentiary hearing for injunction.

Scudder v. Scudder: Florida 2^nd DCA, October 20, 2017:

While Wife's challenge of Final Judgment of Dissolution adopting Marital Settlement Agreement, and Parenting Plan that she agreed to may ultimately be successful based upon both parties essentially lying to the Florida court so that the Florida court could initially take jurisdiction (as subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver, acquiescence, or agreement of the parties), the issue had to be remanded to the lower court as an evidentiary hearing had not yet been held on the matter.

Smith Family Law Firm Update: Week of October 9, 2017

Dukes v. Griffin: 1st DCA, October 11, 2017:
While districts have required trial courts to set forth specific steps and requirements by which a parent can restore reduced time-sharing and eliminate time-sharing restrictions the 1st DCA finds no statutory basis for such a requirement.

Brock v. Brock: 1st DCA, October 11, 2017:
A trial court's adoption of a party's proposed final judgment is not evidence that it resulted in a substitute for the court's thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law.

Betts v. Betts: 2nd DCA, October 13, 2017:
A dollar-for-dollar equitable credit to the former husband for the contributions he made to the mortgage of a martial property was improper as when marital assets are used during the marriage to reduce the mortgage on property, the increase in equity is a martial asset subject o equitable distribution.

Goodman v. Goodman: 2nd DCA, October 13, 2017:
Trial court erred in failing to make findings that supported its treatment of stock options awarded to Husband as a source of income and marital assets (if a trial court treats a stock option as an asset it cannot also treat the same option as income for calculating child support). The trial court also failed to include wife;s trust income as income for child support purposes,

Broga v. Broga: 1st DCA, October 11, 2017:
Trial court improperly imputed income to Husband where no evidence was shown that he could actually earn said income. As the award of attorneys fees was based on the same faulty calculation, the issue was also remanded for further determination by court.

Smith Family Law Update: Week of October 2, 2017

Perkins v. Simmonds: 4th DCA, October 4, 2017: The presumption of paternity to the husband of the mother is not absolute. In this case it was uncontested that putative father was the father, the child was given the putative father's last name, mother had represented she was getting a divorce when she had the child, putative father financially supported the child, and putative father had a strong parent/child bond with the child. Therefore the trial court erred in granting mother's motion to dismiss simply because she was in an intact marriage at the time of the birth of the child.

Schroll v. Schroll: 1st DCA, October 6, 2017: A trial court may award a nominal award of permanent alimony to a spouse who has a clear need for permanent alimony but the other spouse does not have a current ability to pay. However, in this case the trial court awarded wife $1,200,000 in assets and originally held that alimony was not necessary. On rehearing the trial court awarded the nominal alimony without an explanation. Therefore, the issue of nominal permanent periodic alimony was remanded for further explanation. Trial court erred in valuing certain accounts as of date of filing as evidence showed the husband had utilized the accounts to pay for marital expenses during the dissolution including living expenses, attorney's fees and costs, new vehicles for both parties, moving expenses, and paying off the mortgage on the former marital residence before it sold. Issue of valuation of retirement accounts was remanded for explanation as to why valuation of said accounts was tied to date of filing when evidence showed that the accounts had fallen significantly in value based on passive market factors.

Frost v. Frost: 1st DCA, October 6, 2017: Former Wife did not preserve the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by not setting forth the steps the former wife must take to restore unsupervised visitation with the minor child. Former wife could have filed a motion for rehearing but she failed to do so nor did she take any other steps to address the issue.