February 2017 Case Law Updates
Family Law Firm Case Results
Ard v. Ard: 1st DCA: February 10, 2017:
Award for temporary support was reversed. While court has broad discretion with regards to temporary support the movant needs competent and substantial evidence of need and ability to pay. In this case, Wife based her needs on “future” needs when she moved from her mother’s home (where she was living rent free). No evidence was presented as to when, or if, Wife was going to move.
Stokes v. Stokes: 2nd DCA: February 8, 2017:
Trial court’s two orders, one on modification of final judgment and one on modification of parenting plan were supported by competent evidence and included proper findings. However, they conflicted in part and therefore was remanded for clarification.
Ryans v. Bell: 2nd DCA: February 10, 2017:
Adoption of Mother’s proposed final judgment in paternity case did not constitute a "substitute for a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law by the trial judge" however court did err in not taking into consideration Father’s payment of child’s health insurance when calculating his income for child support purposes.
Zapiola v. Kordecki: 2nd DCA: February 10, 2017:
While a single incident of violence can support a claim for domestic violence, the trial court’s reliance of an event that occurred in 2012 (years before) was insufficient without allegations of more recent events. Petitioner’s allegations that she has fearful based on communications from Respondent were not supported. Further, “generalized threats to engage in unpleasant, but not violent, behavior are not sufficient to support the issuance of a domestic violence injunction.”
Garcia-Lawson v. Lawson: 4th DCA: February 8, 2017:
Trial court erred by awarding, as a sanction, the former husband an equitable lien upon her equitable distribution interest in the former husband’s retirement benefits, as a remedy for the former wife’s failure to make an equalization payment.
Garcia-Lawson v. Lawson (2): 4th DCA: February 8, 2017:
It was proper to deny child support claim made by Wife for a child who reached the age of majority 3 years before the petition was filed. “In an initial determination of child support…the court has discretion to award child support retroactive to the date when the parents did not reside together in the same household with the child, not to exceed a period of 24 months proceeding the filing of the petition, regardless of whether that date precedes the filing of the petition.”
Duke v. Duke: 5th DCA: February 10, 2017:
While there was no transcript of the trial, the Court’s determination of alimony, attorney’s fees, requirement to maintain life insurance to secure support and the ultimate parenting plan were reversed and remanded as error was clear on the face of trial court’s order. The trial court failed to impute to Wife the interest that could be earned from her half of sizable asset (1.2 million dollar deferred retirement account) which was distributed in the judgment when determining her need for alimony.
As to attorney’s fees, trial court order failed to make a finding of the reasonable amount of hours and the reasonable rate of Wife’s attorney when calculating the attorney fee award.
As to the requirement to carry life insurance to secure support, the judgment failed to “make specific evidentiary findings regarding the availability and cost of insurance, the obligor’s ability to pay, and the special circumstances that warrant the requirement for security of the obligation.”
The parenting plan was found to be insufficient for failure to list all determinations under Florida Statutes 61.13(2)(b).
Posted by Roy Smith on Feb 13th 2017
