Below are summaries of recent decisions from Florida's appellate courts on Florida divorce and family law issues. Clicking on the case name allows you to view the appellate opinion described in the analysis below. These summaries are courtesy of Bruce Law Firm, P.A., a law firm limited to representation of clients in the mediation, litigation and appeals of Florida marital and family law matters. The firm also created and maintains the family law focused appellate resources website DivorceCourtAppeals.com.

Case:              Lathrop v. Lathrop n/k/a Posey
Court:            Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: John A. Schaefer.
Attorneys:     Dorothy F. Easley, Allison M. Perry.
Issues:            Alimony.
Holding:       In the absence of special circumstances, a Former Spouse cannot be required to maintain life insurance for the purpose of securing an alimony obligation. A final judgment of dissolution must set forth sufficient findings of special circumstances to support a requirement for life insurance. In this case, the trial court erred in requiring the Former Husband to maintain a life insurance policy to secure the payment of permanent alimony in the absence of any special circumstances to justify the life insurance requirement. The appeals court reversed.

Case:              Thomas-Nance v. Nance
Court:            Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Martha J. Cook.
Attorneys:      Deborah Marks.
Issues:            Alimony.
Holding:        To deprive a party of the majority of the assets of the marriage for the rest of his or her life is an abuse of discretion. The sentimental interest of one party in marital property cannot take priority over financial fairness to the other. In this case, the trial court erred when it ordered that the Former Husband to pay the Former Wife her interest in the marital home at a monthly rate which would require her to wait more than 20 years to receive her share of the marital assets. The payment plan was patently unreasonable. The appeals court revered and remanded.

Case:              B.J. v. D.C.F.
Court:            Third District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Maria Sampedro-Iglesia.
Attorneys:   Eugene F. Zenobi, Kevin Coyle Colbert, Karla Perkins, Laura J. Lee (Sandford).
Issues:            Dependency.
Holding:   An appellate court reviews an adjudication of dependency for an abuse of discretion, and will uphold the determination if the trial court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent, substantial evidence. The parent's harmful behavior must be a present threat to the child, based on competent, substantial evidence that the child was either abandoned, abused, or neglected, or that the risk of abandonment, abuse or neglect is imminent. In this case, the trial court erred in ordering dependency in the absence of competent substantial evidence of imminent prospective abuse, abandonment, or neglect. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:              Vaught v. Vaught
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Lisa S. Small.
Attorneys:     Andrew David Stine, Manuel Farach.
Issues:           Domestic Violence Injunction.

Holding: A party defending against a claim is entitled to due process, including the right to proper and adequate notice of the allegations which form the basis for the relief sought. Under Florida Statutes (2014) a Respondent to a petition for a domestic violence injunction shall be personally served with a copy of the petition. In this case, the trial court erred in ordering a domestic violence injunction when certain new allegations were raised for the first time in a supplemental affidavit and not at the hearing. The trial court further erred in denying the Respondent’s motion for continuance where the notice of the final hearing on the new and supplemental allegations was provided only a few business days before the hearing. The appeals court reversed the final judgment of injunction.

About DivorceCourtAppeals.com and Bruce Law Firm, P.A.

The Bruce Law Firm, P.A. is limited to the resolution of marital and family la w matters in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. The firm handles divorce litigation in South Florida and accepts referrals for appellate representation in all of Florida’s appellate courts. The firm pays referral fees in accordance with Florida Bar Rules for appellate matters, which are handled primarily on a fixed fee basis with a limited money back promise if the brief is not filed within 45 days of the firm receiving the transcript and record on appeal.

Case:             J.M. v. D.C.F.
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: J. David Langford.
Attorneys:     Antony P. Ryan, Melanie L. Casper, Rosemarie Farrell, Laura J. Lee.
Issues:            Dependency.
Holding:      Without evidence showing that domestic violence has occurred when a child or children were present, or that they were aware of such violence, a finding of impending harm to the children is unsubstantiated. For purposes of dependency, harm to a child includes extensive, abusive, and chronic use of a controlled substance or alcohol by a parent when the child is demonstrably adversely affected by such usage. In this case, the trial court erred in ordering dependency in the absence of competent substantial evidence that: a. the child was aware of alleged incidents of violence between the Mother and Father, or was affected by such instances; and b. the Mother was under the influence of substances in the presence of the Child, or that any substance abuse adversely affected the Child (despite her being under the influence in the presence of others). The appeals court reversed.

Case:              J.B. and D.C.F. v. C.S.
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge:   Karen A. Gievers.
Attorneys:   Theresa Flury, Kelley Schaeffer, Dwight O. Slater, Thomasina Moore,    Ronald Newlin, Lorraine M. Donovan-Lepanto, Mike Donovan, Stephen Johnson.
Issues:            Termination, Reunification.
Holding:        Where the trial court's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and the appellate court cannot say that no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing, the findings will not be set aside on appellate review. In this case, the trial court did not err as it made its determination that statutory grounds for termination of parental rights existed; that termination promoted the children’s best interests; and that termination was the least restrictive means to protect the children from serious harm as competent substantial evidence. The appeals court affirmed.

Case:             Children’s Home Society of Florida v. V.D.
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Karen A. Gievers.
Attorneys:     Cheryl R. Eisen-Yeary, Elizabeth W. Willis, James V. Cook.
Issues:            Adoption.
Holding:      Under Florida Statutes, an adoption agency is not required to serve a notice of intended adoption plan on a putative father unless the mother has first identified a known and locatable unmarried biological father by the date she signs her consent for adoption. . Likewise, the statute does not require the agency to conduct a diligent search for the putative father unless the mother has identified a potential father within the timeframes required by the statute which are identified as the date the mother signs the consent for adoption. In this case, the trial court erred as no putative father was known, or locatable, or identified, by the time the birth mother signed her consent for adoption. Although that is the only time frame relevant under the statute, it is also true that the limited information the birth mother provided later, under questioning from the trial court, likewise did not identify a known or locatable putative father. The Society was not subject to any diligent search requirement beyond what it had already completed prior to the termination of parental rights. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             Demmi v. Demmi
Court:            First District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: David Rimmer.
Attorneys:      Bradley G. Johnson, Bradley G. Fisher.
Issues:            Child Support/Expenses.
Holding:        In making an order as to non-covered medical expenses, if such expenses are ordered to be separately paid, a trial court must allocate these expenses in the same percentage as the child support allocation unless there is a rationale in the final judgment to the contrary. In this case, the trial court erred in ordering the parties to each be responsible for the payment of 50% of the non-covered medical expenses of the children because such allocation conflicted with the final judgment’s allocation of the parties’ relative financial responsibility for child support.

Case:             Felice v. Felice
Court:            Second District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Christine Greider.
Attorneys:
Issues:            Equitable Distribution, Parenting.
Holding:         In this case, the trial court erred by including a portion of the value of the Former Husband's premarital home as a marital asset in the equitable distribution scheme. While the parties’ did not specifically refer to any right to the appreciation or enhancement of the Former Husband’s premarital home the broad language of the agreement expressly waived the Former Wife's rights and claims in the property and included the appreciated or enhanced value of the property that occurs during the marriage. The court further erred as it failed to incorporate into the amended final judgment the amended parenting plan that the trial court ordered on rehearing from the original final judgment. The appeals court reversed.

Case:              R.W. v. D.C.F.
Court:            Third District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Jeri B. Cohen.
Attorneys:      Albert W. Guffanti, Karla Perkins, Laura J. Lee (Sanford).
Issues:            Termination.
Holding:         A trial court may properly question witnesses when required by the interests of justice. In this case, the trial court did not err in its participation in the questioning of witnesses at an adjudicatory hearing. Such questioning did not constitute an abandonment of the trial court’s role of neutrality and impartiality and did not deprive the appellant of due process. The appellant failed to object to most of the court’s questions it now relies upon for this claim. The appeals court affirmed.

Case:             Collins v. Collins, Sr.
Court:            Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Mark J. Hill.
Attorneys:     Brandon M. Tyson, Paul W. Darby, Thomas Holden.
Issues:            Parenting.
Holding:      In awarding limited or restrictions on parental responsibility, a trial court must make specific findings on point. In this case, although the trial court’s factual findings supported its decision, the appeals court remanded because the final judgment failed to include a specific finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the children.

Case:            Nuila v. Stolp
Court:            Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Kelly J. McKibben.
Attorneys:      Lindsey M. Sharp.
Issues: Injunction Against Domestic Violence.
Holding:   An injunction against dating violence is statutorily authorized if a petitioner proved three elements: (1) a dating relationship within the past six months; (2) at least one occasion of dating violence; and (3) reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger ofanother act of dating violence. In this case, the trial court erred as, while there was competent substantial evidence on that the parties had dated in the past 6 months and there had been an episode of dating violence, the third statutory element, reasonable cause to believe that the petitioner was in imminent danger of another act of dating violence, was not supported by competent substantial evidence. The appeals court reversed.

Case:             G.K. v. D.C.F.
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: J. David Langford.
Attorneys:     Antony P. Ryan, Richard G. Bartmon, Rosemarie Farrell, Laura J. Lee.
Issues:            Dependency.
Holding:        An order for dependency must be based on competent substantial evidence, avoiding inadmissible hearsay evidence, of risk to the child/children. In this case, the trial court erred in ordering dependency when there was no competent substantial evidence that the children where at risk or witnessed incidents of domestic violence involving the parents, or that the Father posed a current threat to the safety of the children. The trial court also relied upon inadmissible hearsay evidence to support the order of dependency. The appeals court reversed and remanded.

Case:            Abramovic v. Abramovic
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Jeffrey Dana Gillen.
Attorneys:     Jamie Billotte Moses.
Issues:            Equitable Distribution, Exemption.
Holding:        A lump sum equalizing payment to accomplish equitable distribution is properly awarded only when the evidence reflects a justification for such an award and the ability of the paying spouse to make the payment without substantially endangering his or her economic status. The custodial parent presumptively is entitled to the tax exemptions but may release them to the noncustodial parent. A final judgment awarding a dependency tax exemption must require that the exemption be conditional on the paying spouse’s being current in his support obligations. In this case, the trial court erred in requiring the Former Wife to make an equalizing payment which the evidence showed she could not afford; giving the Former Husband the dependency exemption without conditioning it on his compliance with his child support obligations, and not alternating the dependency exemption between the parties. The appeals court reversed.

Case:            McGlynn v. Tallman-McGlynn
Court:            Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Amy L. Smith.
Attorneys:      Robert M. Lewis, Catherine S. Eaton, Cash A. Eaton.
Issues:            Alimony, Child Support.
Holding:        Any error on the part of the trial court may be considered invited error. Matters argued for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered by the reviewing court. In this case, the trial court did not err in computing and applying the Former Husband’s net income when determining child support payments. The error raised by the Former Husband regarding calculation of his income was invited error as the court’s calculations were based on his affidavit evidence and not raised properly on appeal (he raised it in a reply brief). The Former Husband’s arguments regarding calculations were not supported by the record, and the trial court’s conclusions that he could to survive economically after making all required payments was supported on the evidence. The appeal court affirmed.

Case:            Palmer v. Palmer
Court:            Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Trial Judge: Ann Melinda Craggs.
Attorneys:      Robert H. McLean, Bureus Wayne Argo.
Issues:            Parenting, Time-Sharing.
Holding:         In this case, the trial court did not err in allowing the Former Husband to reopen the evidence after the trial had concluded and regarding time-sharing. However, it did err in denying the Former Wife’s petition to limit their child’s exposure to dogs (due to allergies) in the face of expert evidence supporting a restriction and the Former Husband conceding that a restriction was in the child’s best interest. The appeals court reversed and remanded regarding restricting exposure to dogs

About DivorceCourtAppeals.com and Bruce Law Firm, P.A.