Florida Family Law Update: Week of Feb. 27, 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.
Posted by Roy Smith on Mar 03rd 2017
