Family Law Updates

Florida Family Law Update: Week of Feb. 27, 2017

Posted by Roy Smith on Mar 03rd 2017

Florida Family Law Update: Week of Feb. 27, 2017

Conlin v. Conlin, 2nd DCA, March 1, 2017:
Trial court erred in using husband’s gross income, as opposed to his net income, in determining his alimony calculation. Trial court also erred in not making a determination as to whether a loan taken out for the benefit of the couple’s daughters was marital or non-marital (no guidance provided by appellate court as to which type it should have been though).

Tepedino v. Baker, 3rd DCA, March 1, 2017:
Father’s petition for writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from hearing a Motion to Establish Time-Sharing (alleging non-compliance with Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(h) and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.110/ as the pleading was titled a “motion” and not a “supplemental complain or petition") was denied. Appellate court did not reach determination as to whether Mother’s filing would act as a procedural bar to her relief. Instead seeking prohibition was simply improper because where a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction, prohibition is inappropriate to prevent an erroneous exercise which can be corrected on appeal. Concurring opinion cautions that the trial court allowing the motion of Mother to go forward without correcting the pleading to convert it to a supplemental petition or complaint will create a waste of judicial resources (I.e. Father had right legal argument but used wrong legal vehicle to make his argument).

Singer v. Singer, 4th DCA, March 1, 2017:
Trial court erred when its order denied Wife attorney’s fees after indicating at the hearing that the court was reserving as to entitlement. Further, appeal of court’s determination of Husband’s entitlement to fees was not ripe as an amount of fees had not yet been set.

Foley v. Foley, 5th DCA, March 3, 2017:
Trial court ordered that child time-sharing be modified and that child support would be modified based upon a new child support guidelines worksheet to be prepared by father’s counsel. However, trial court erred in ordering, after subsequent review, that the court lacked the authority to modify support where the matter was not plead or tried by consent and where no financial affidavits were submitted. The record, contrary to the trial court’s order, revealed that financial affidavits had been admitted into evidence and that both parties were on actual notice that child support modification was at issue.

Read More...

FLORIDA FAMILY LAW UPDATE: Week of February 13, 2017

Posted by Roy Smith on Feb 20th 2017

Florida Family Law Case Results

LeDoux-Nottingham v. Downs: Fla Sup. Ct. February 16, 2017:

Florida Supreme Court found that it was improper to invalidate an out-of-state judgment that allowed for grandparent visitation when, after the death of former husband, mother moved to Florida which does not recognize grandparent visitation rights. Any possible Florida public policy exception would be irrelevant as there is no public policy exception to full faith and credit due final judgments of sister states. Case embraced the 5th DCA’s position while rejecting the positions of the 4th and 2nd DCAs.

Ramadan v. Ramadan: 2nd DCA February 17, 2017:

While a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a request for continuance of trial should not be set aside unless there was an abuse of discretion, in this case the 2nd DCA found enough to show such abuse of discretion. The case had been bifurcated wherein the divorce was granted and a trial was set as to the remaining factors of equitable distribution, alimony, attorney’s fees and costs. Two months before trial on the remaining issues, Wife requested continuance as Husband had not provided financial documents necessary for forensic examination and further requested monies for attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court denied these requests. One month before trial Wife’s counsel was allowed to withdraw. Two weeks later Wife secured new LIMITED counsel to reargue for continuation, needs for records, attorney’s fees and costs.  These requests were denied again. As a result Wife represented herself at the final hearing telephonically. The Court would not entertain her additional requests for continuation. The trial court also failed to advise Wife of her ability to represent herself, testify and put forth evidence. As a result Husband was given a directed verdict. Again, these factors combined represented an abuse of discretion by the trial court and a new trial was ordered by the 2nd DCA.

Read More...