SMITH FAMILY FLORIDA CASE LAW UPDATE: Week of March 12, 2018:
The Smith Family Law Florida Case Law Update: Week of March 12, 2018.
HAPPY ST. PATRICK’S DAY!!!
Erlinger v. Federico: Fla 1st DCA, March 15, 2018:
Detailed discussion of disqualification. Wife’s request for disqualification of judge was properly denied even where court allegedly (1) interrupted cross examination and made comments such as “you do what you want”, (2) loudly sighed and shook head during testimony, (3) interrupted opposing counsel’s questioning of wife to question and comment on testimony of wife. While a judge may not prejudge a case, a judge can form mental impressions and opinions during an evidentiary hearing. Subjective fears regarding non-verbal expressions are not grounds for disqualification. Adverse rulings without more are not legally sufficient grounds for disqualification.
Subramanian v. Subramanian: Fla 4th DCA, March 14, 2018:
While the trial court properly set forth the specific steps the former husband must take to reestablish timesharing and it was within its discretion to condition increased timesharing on the successful completion of parenting course and therapy, the trial court erred in delegating authority to determine visitation to therapists and the guardian ad litem. Further, court erred in equitably distributing loans/liabilities incurred after the filing of the petition for dissolution.
Lamorte v. Testoni: Fla 4th DCA, March 14, 2018:
While Mother did not preserve the issue of child support continuing for special needs child past the age of majority for purposes of appeal, Mother has not waived this argument as Mother may seek a modification on the basis that Florida Statutes 743.07(2) applies.
Hedden v. Hedden: Fla 5th DCA, March 16, 2018:
Trial court erred in awarding permanent alimony of $1,000.00 a month and durational alimony of $2,700.00 a month until Wife reached age of sixty-two and received Social Security benefits. While permanent periodic alimony and durational alimony may be awarded together if justified, here it was clear that permanent periodic alimony was justified and court erred in taking into consideration future Social Security benefits as alimony awards must be based on “current existing circumstances, and not on possibilities likely but as of yet unrealized.”
Carter v. Carter: Fla 5th DCA, March 16, 2018:
Former Husband was not entitled to relief from contempt order entered against him as the trial court held a simultaneous evidentiary hearing on Former Wife’s motion for contempt and Former Husband’s motion for temporary reduction or termination of alimony (which contained the same allegations and grounds included in his amended supplemental petition). While trial court did mention Former Husband’s ability to use credit cards to pay purge amount, the trial court nevertheless did not err as it found that Former Husband had actual assets sufficient to pay the purge amount. Former Husband’s argument that his due process rights were violated for failure of the notice of hearing to have language from Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(b) was rejected as Former Husband attended the hearing and therefore no adverse effects were suffered.
Posted by Roy Smith on Mar 19th 2018
